KDI Precision Products, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 27, 1970

185 N.L.R.B. 335 (N.L.R.B. 1970)

KDI PRECISION PRODUCTS, INC.
K D I Precision Products , Inc. and International Union,
United Automobile , Aerospace and Agricultural
Implement Workers of America (UAW). Cases 9-
CA-5238 and 9-CA-5333
335
Ohio, its officers, agents, successors and assigns, shall
take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's
Recommended Order.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
August 27, 1970
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS
MCCULLOCH AND BROWN
On March 27, 1970, Trial Examiner George Turitz
issued his Decision in the above-entitled consolidated
proceeding, finding that Respondent had engaged in
and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices
and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom
and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in
the attached Trial Examiner's Decision. He further
found that Respondent had not engaged in certain
other unfair labor practices alleged in the consolidated
complaint. Thereafter, both Respondent and General
Counsel filed limited exceptions,' and briefs in support
thereof, to the Trial Examiner's Decision.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
powers in connection with these cases to a three-
member panel.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial
Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no
prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are here-
by affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial
Examiner's Decision, the exceptions and briefs, and
the entire record in these cases, and hereby adopts
the findings,' conclusions, and recommendations of
the Trial Examiner.
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
Order of the Trial Examiner, and hereby orders that
Respondent, KDI Precision Products, Inc., Norwood,
' No exceptions have been taken to the Trial Examiner's findings
and conclusions that Respondent independently violated Sec 8(a) (1)
by coercively interrogating two employees and by making promise of
benefits and threats of reprisal to a third employee
' Respondent has excepted to certain credibility findings made by
the Trial Examiner It is the Board's established policy not to overrule
a Trial Examiner's resolutions with respect to credibility unless the clear
preponderance of all the relevant evidence convinces us that the resolutions
were incorrect Standard Dry Wall Products, Inc, 91 NLRB 544, enfd
188 F 2d 362 (C A 3) We find no such basis for disturbing Trial
Examiner's credibility findings in this case
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
GEORGE TURITZ, Trial Examiner: Upon a charge filed
in Case 9-CA-5238 on June 24, 1969,1 by International
Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural
Implement Workers of America (UAW) (the UAW and,
at times, the Union) and served on June 25 on KDI
Precision Products, Inc. (Respondent and, at times, the
Company), and upon a charge filed in Case 9-CA-5333
on September 11 by the UAW and served on Respondent
on September 12, the General Counsel of the National
Labor Relations Board (the Board), through the Regional
Director for Region 9, on August 28 issued and served,
on Respondent a complaint and notice of hearing in Case
9-CA-5238, and on October 9 issued and served a complaint
and notice of hearing in Case 9-CA-5333 and an order
consolidating cases in both said cases and in Case 9-
CA-5283.2 Respondent filed its answers in which it denied
all allegations of unfair labor practices in both complaints.
A hearing was held at Cincinnati, Ohio, on October 22
and 23, and November 19, 20, and 21, before the Trial
Examiner named above The General Counsel and Respond-
ent were represented at the hearing by their respective
counsel; the UAW was represented by an international
representative who participated to a limited extent. Respond-
ent and the General Counsel have filed briefs with the
Trial Examiner.
Upon the entire record and from his observation of
the witnesses, the Trial Examiner makes the following.
FINDINGS OF FACT
I THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT
Respondent, KDI Precision Products, Inc, is a Delaware
corporation having a place of business in Norwood, Ohio,
where it is engaged in the manufacture, sale, and distribution
of fuses In the course and conduct of its business operations
at said plant Respondent annually purchases and causes
to be shipped from points outside the State of Ohio directly
to said plant parts, supplies, and equipment valued in
excess of $50,000, and annually sells and ships from said
plant directly to customers located outside the State of
Ohio, products valued in excess of $50,000. It is found
that Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce within
the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the National
Labor Relations Act, as amended (the Act)
' Unless otherwise stated all dates mentioned in this Decision were
in 1969
' Prior to the hearing the charge in Case 9-CA-5283 was withdrawn
with the approval of the Regional Director At the hearing a complaint
issued in that case was withdrawn and Case 9-CA-5283 was severed
from the other cases
185 NLRB No. 60
33b DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Ii. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and
Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW) is
a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5)
of the Act.
REASON FOR WARNING- Distributing union literature
and disturbing other employees
WARNING GIVEN OR DISCIPLINARY ACTION
TAKEN Written warning.
I ACKNOWLEDGE THAT A COPY OF THIS WARNING
HAS BEEN GIVEN TO ME-
III THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
The principal issues litigated at the hearing were Respond-
ent's rule against union solicitation and distribution, the
warning notice issued to Bonnie Durham for violating
the rule, the allegedly discriminatory discharge of Gloria
Sims, and certain interrogations and coercive statements
by supervisors.
A. Respondent's Rule as to Union Solicitation and
Distribution
On June 20, 1969, a conference took place in Respondent's
personnel office in connection with a warning notice to
Bonnie Durham which is discussed below Present in the
office besides Durham were Sorrell, her foreman, Saylor,
the superintendent of parts fabricating, and Robers,
Respondent's employment manager After her warning
notice had been disposed of, Durham asked Saylor when
union literature could be distributed. He replied that it
could be done before work, after work, and during lunch
time. Saylor testified that he added:
To make it simple so that everybody understands
it, you are not to solicit on company time, or while
you are rang in on the card
Robers testified that Saylor told Durham, "that . . no
conversation about the Union or passing out of literature
about the Union was to be done on company time "
The warning notice which was issued referred primarily
to Durham's distributing union literature, but in the various
statements made in the office as to what the rules were,
references were made indiscriminately both to soliciting
and to distributing union literature It is plain that Respond-
ent made no distinction between the two, and that both
were within the prohibition stated by Saylor. It is undisputed
that employees were "on the clock" during their morning
and afternoon breaks. Moreover, as no qualification was
made as to place, it is also plain that the prohibitions
applied to all parts of the plant, including nonwork areas
The rule was thus unduly restrictive of the employees
in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7. It is
found that by maintaining and enforcing its no-solicitation
and no-distribution rule Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1)
of the Act. See Stoddard-Quirk Manufacturing Company,
138 NLRB 615
B. The Warning to Bonnie Durham
On June 20 Bonnie Durham received a written warning
from Respondent reading as follows:
NAME Bonnie Durham DEPT. 12
CLOCK NO 554 JOB CLASSIFICATION
DATE OF OFFENSE- Punch Press Operator
6-20-69 DATE OF WARNING 6-20-69
Employee's Signature Supervisor's Signature
COMMENTS -------- You have been observed passing out
union literature during company working hours We have
also, received several complaints from employees being
disturbed by your distributing union literature during
company working hours This letter will serve as a written
warning, any further action on your part distributing union
literature, disturbing any employee during company time
will result in suspension or discharge
To justify the warning Respondent relied solely on Dur-
ham's actions that day involving Barbara Hensley and
Nancy St. Clair
Durham worked in Department 12, Hensley and St
Clair worked in Department 14, which was on another
floor In early May Respondent placed a broaching machine,
with Hensley and St Clair as the operators, physically
within Department 12 but as part of Department 14 When
the machine was not in use, Hensely and St Clair worked
in their own department. Durham made a practice of
being friendly with Hensley and St. Clair, and they, finding
themselves in a strange department, felt appreciative "that
she had been nice to us while we were working in the
basement."
On June 20 Durham enlisted as a member of the UAW
In-Plant Organizing Committee and that same day
approached St. Clair and Hensley and urged them to sign
union cards. Later she returned and delivered two cards
to St. Clair When Durham delivered the cards, the broach-
ing machine was undergoing a minor repair by Jim Meyer,
the setup man for Department 14, and Hensley and St.
Clair were on "down time"; i.e., they were being paid
although not actually working. Durham herself was on
her lunch period.
While the fact that none of these employees were working
when Durham delivered the cards is undisputed, the evi-
dence as to the situation when she first approached them
is in sharp conflict Durham testified that her first approach
was very shortly before the second one, and that Hensley
and St Clair were on down time and she herself was
already on her lunch period. St. Clair and Hensley testified
that the first approach was considerably earlier and that
they were operating the broaching machine at the time
However, they testified that they went on working, and
neither said that their work was hindered. Respondent
had no rule against talking while at work and the record
shows that Hensley and St. Clair participated in the conver-
sation with Durham, and also that Hensley chatted with
Meyer while he repaired the broaching machine. Hensley
placed the first conversation after her break, which ended
10 minutes before Durham's began. Neither in the warning
notice nor in the interview which preceded it was any
accusation made by Respondent that Durham had left
her own work. Moreover, it is uncontradicted that Sorrell,
Durham's foreman, told his superiors that he had "never
KDI PRECISION PRODUCTS, INC
seen her disturbing nobody or passing out
anything . she's one of the best workers I have." On
the basis of the above it is found that Durham was not on
her own work time when the first contact occurred. On the
other hand, the Trial Examiner is convinced that St. Clair
and Hensley did not imagine that they were operating their
machine when Durham approached them on that occasion
and finds that that incident occurred while they were
working
Hensley and St Clair did nothing as a result of the
first encounter dust discussed and the matter would have
been forgotten When Durham returned and delivered the
two cards to St. Clair, however, the latter went over to
where Hensley was speaking with Meyer, the setup man,
and said, "Here's your card, Barb " She remarked to Meyer,
"I see another union is trying to get into KDI", and
in response to his request she delivered the cards to him
and pointed out Durham as the solicitor. Meyer took the
cards to Superintendent Saylor and both proceeded to the
personnel department and reported the matter to Robers.
St Clair and Hensley were invited to the office where,
upon request, Hensley made a report of their experience
with Durham They then left.
Sorrell, Durham's foreman, summoned her to his office
and asked her to sign the warning notice set forth above.
Durham protested that she did not disturb other employees.
Sorrell agreed and said, "I don't understand it, but you're
supposed to sign it." Durham refused and he brought
her to the personnel office where the meeting with Robers,
Sorrell, and Saylor referred to in subsection A took place.
Durham told Saylor, "I'm not guilty of that. I don't go
disturbing other employees," and Sorrell made the compli-
mentary remark about Durham as an employee which
has already been quoted Saylor said he could prove the
accusation if he had to and that Durham was supposed
to sign the warning. When Durham repeated that she
preferred not to sign it, Robers insisted no further and
had only Foreman Sorrell sign the paper. It was at this
point that Saylor told Durham, as already described, that
she could not solicit or distribute for the Union at any
time when she was "on the clock "
Meyer testified that after Durham had delivered the
two cards and had left, St. Clair complained, "Can't some-
thing be done about this?" He testified further.
. . . She said: "We dust got finished voting on, or
trying to get the Union in. That's all we have heard
for the last 4 months is union. Now we come down
here, and we are hearing the same stuff all over again.
We are just tired of it." And she said that "Bonnie
was here this morning and she wouldn't leave until
we promised her that we would take two of her cards
and send them in." And she pulled out the cards
out of her purse and said, "Here, I don't want them "
Saylor testified that Meyer reported to him that Durham
returned to St. Clair and Hensley" . . . on vanous occasions
to talk to them about . ." the union cards in spite
of their telling her that they were not interested. He said
that he himself told Durham's foreman, Sorrell, that Dur-
ham was "going outside of her department and talking
to other employees on company time. . Keep her in
her department or let her stay in her break area if she's
337
on her break or lunch hour. Don't interfere with people
on their job." Saylor testified that he did not participate
in the conference in the personnel office with St Clair
and Hensley except to the extent that he stopped there
for half a minute or less to say, "I am sorry, girls, that
you are being implemented [sic] in this thing." Neither
St Clair nor Hensley testified to having made any complaint
to Meyer or to management about Durham. Both stated
specifically that Meyer, having heard only that cards had
been handed out, asked for them and took them to his
superiors.' Hensley testified that at the meeting in Robers'
office they merely stated that Durham had spoken to them
about union cards and then, later, had delivered the cards,
and that St Clair had given them to Meyer upon his
request Asked whether anything else had been said during
the meeting in Robers' office, she testified, "No because
we-we didn't want to get involved, so we tried to keep
quiet as much as possible . . " Robers testified that
he had Hensley and St Clair brought to his office when
he was informed that they had been given cards. He men-
tioned their earlier encounter with Durham only in connec-
tion with the report he elicited from the girls in his office.
He testified, further:
These girls came in, and the conversation got around
to the point Bonnie Durham giving the cards to them
They said that they understood that the union activity
in the plant was completed, they thought it was all
over, they didn't want any further part in it, and
that they didn't want to especially get Bonnie Durham
into trouble, but that they just didn't want to keep
being bothered by someone for them to sign union
cards and different things of this nature, in relation
to the union. . . . Well . . they told us they didn't
want to become involved, but of course we told them
that we didn't want them to become involved either,
but if something wrong was going on in the plant
that-and this was taking place during company time,
that we certainly wanted to know about it, if they
wanted to tell us. And if they didn't want to be
bothered any further, you know, we would follow
up on it....
The Trial Examiner has not credited Meyer or Saylor
and it is found that St Clair and Hensley made no complaint
to Meyer about Durham and that Meyer made no report
of such complaint to Saylor It is further found that St
Clair and Hensley went to Robers' office at Respondent's
request and not for the purpose of registering a complaint,
and that they registered no complaint.
The Trial Examiner is convinced that Respondent issued
the warning notice to Durham solely on the basis of her
having handed the cards to St Clair while St. Clair and
Hensley were on company time. That was the only incident
that brought the matter to the attention of the personnel
department. While Robers, in the course of his meeting
' St Clair did testify, "I certainly didn't want her bothering me
every few minutes of the day about the Union," but did not testify
that she had said that to Meyers or anyone else She explained that
she had not reported the matter further and would not have done so
unless Durham had come back She was not questioned about the meeting
in the personnel office
338 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
with Hensley and St. Clair, learned of the earlier encounter,
nothing was made of that in the warning itself, which
was directed exclusively at Durham's "distributing union
literature" and "passing out union literature' during compa-
ny working hours " Meyers' uncredited testimony that St.
Clair said, "Can't something be done about this," and
Saylor's uncredited testimony that he had told Sorrell that
Durham was "going outside of her department" to talk
to other employees, and that Sorrell should "keep her
in her department," supports the conclusion that Respond-
ent injected the earlier encounter into the case as an after-
thought and that it played no part in the issuance of
the warning In this connection it is noted that conversation
was permitted during work, and that there is no evidence
that Hensley or St. Clair's production was impeded
In N.L.R.B. v. LeTourneau Co. of Georgia, 324 U.S.
793, the Supreme Court set forth certain underlying princi-
ples governing the extent to which an employer may restrict
his employees in union solicitation on his property. The
Court stated, at 797-798-
These cases bring here for review the action of
the National Labor Relations Board in working out
an adjustment between the undisputed right of self-
organization assured to employees under the Wagner
Act and the equally undisputed right of employers
to maintain discipline in their establishments. Like
so many others, these rights are not unlimited in
the sense that they can be exercised without regard
to any duty which the existence of rights in others
may place upon employer or employee. Opportunity
to organize and proper discipline are both essential
elements in a balanced society
The Board has held that, in the absence of special circum-
stances, an employer may not restrict employees in union
solicitation except during their working time. Working time
does not include paid rest periods, formal or informal,
see Peyton Packing Company, 49 NLRB 828, 843-844,
Campbell Soup Co. v. N.L.R.B., 380 F.2d 372, enfg. in
relevant part 159 NLRB 74; Saco-Lowell Shops, a Division
of Maremont Corporation, 169 NLRB No 151. While Hens-
ley and St Clair were not on a rest or lunch period,
it is plain that Durham's delivery of the two cards did
not impinge to the slightest degree upon their work and
was a protected activity As it has been found that the
warning was issued because of this incident alone, it was
plainly coercive and violative of Section 8(a)(1)
While it has been found that Durham's earlier conversa-
tion with Hensley and St Clair while they were working
was not the basis for the warning notice, it should be
noted that in the circumstances of this case any disciplinary
action because of that incident would likewise have been
violative of the Act. As already found, Respondent's rule
was invalid. Where an employee's violation of an invalid
rule is based on conduct which could have been forbidden
by a valid rule, an employer must prove actual impeding
of production in order to justify disciplining the employee.
The fact that worktime has been used for solicitation is
' There is no evidence that Durham passed out "union literature",
it is plain that Respondent was referring to the cards
insufficient to support an inference that the solicitation
interfered with work, see Greentree Electronics Corporation,
176 NLRB No. 126, fn 5; and Respondent failed to prove
such interference. Hensley and St. Clair's stated objection
to the union activities was not tied to their work, they
thought that the union question should not have been
raised at that time altogether. Indeed the fact already
alluded to, that the warning notice was directed to the
handing out of the cards, supports the conclusion that
there was no interference with production as a result of
the earlier conversation
C. Interrogation , Threats ofRetaliation, and Promises of
Benefit
On June 17 Respondent received from the UAW a letter
stating that the Union was conducting an organizing cam-
paign among Respondent's employees and setting forth,
among other things, a "partial list" of members of the
Employee Organizing Committee. On June 19 Respondent
wrote a letter to each of the 10 named members of the
organizing committee warning that their union membership
and activities gave them no special status and that if they
did not perform properly, they would be "subject to disci-
pline, including discharge, just as any other employee.
" That same day Respondent distributed to all the
employees, numbering about 900 to 1,000, a letter in which
it attacked the "few die-hard employees . . . that refuse
to accept the democratic way of life and accept the fact
that the great majority of you do not want a union here
.." The letter stated, also, "Nine out of the ten employees
comprising the UAW organizing committee are the same
as the ones on the IAM organizing committee Evidently,
they have no trouble changing their loyalty from the IAM
to the UAW. We wonder why or what's in it for these
employees who are willing to push first for one union
then for another...." Among the nine employees referred
to in the latter document was Ruth McCollum. The follow-
ing week McCollum's departmental manager, Jack Hemple,
summoned her to his office McCollum had worked under
Hemple previously at a unionized plant, where she had
not been active in the union. Hemple was friendly in
his manner and asked McCollum to keep the matter "strictly
between us" He agreed with her comment that it was
"strictly against the law" for him to speak to her about
the Union on company time, but he said that he did
not think it should matter since they were friends. McCollum
replied that she did not think they were "that good of
friends." Remarking that he had not known that McCollum
was "so union-minded," Hemple asked why she thought
the Union was needed and why she had not signed a
paper sooner if she felt the employees needed a union.
McCollum had also been on the IAM organizing committee
in 1969, but not in 1968. She said that the first time
she felt that she had not been in the plant long enough
to know whether a union was needed, but now she felt
it was needed. Hemple asked what her complaints were,
to which she replied that she had none, but that two
women whom she named had been unfairly discharged.
Hemple asked her to speak about the matter to Goodman,
the manager of the personnel department, which McCollum
KDI PRECISION PRODUCTS, INC 339
did the next day. Goodman brought out the records of
the two employees and pointed out their extensive absences,
commenting that Respondent had "just reason for letting
them go " McCollum agreed that they had bad absence
records. Goodman invited McCollum to come back anytime
she had problems or wanted to know something about
rumors she might hear Hemple's request that the conversa-
tion not go farther than "between us" and that he was
talking to her as a friend might have contained some
implication that there would be no retaliation against her.
However, only a few days previously McCollum had received
Respondent's letter to the employees in which Respondent
publicly questioned her motives in supporting the UAW,
and Hemple did not separate himself from the opinions
and insinuations contained in that letter In those circum-
stances his action in singling her out and summoning her
to his office to explain her different behavior in 1968
and 1969 and to justify her adherence to a union so strongly
opposed by Respondent tended to chill McCollum's readi-
ness to engage in union activities. Respondent demonstrated
no need for the information which Hemple sought from
McCollum. See Blue Flash Express, Inc., 109 NLRB 591.
It is found that Hemple's interrogation of McCollum was
coercive and violative of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
On or about August 1, Gloria Sims told her foreman,
Sam Storey, that her daughter's physician was trying to
get her into a hospital for examination of a possibly cancer-
ous growth and that in 10 days or 2 weeks she would
need time off to take her there Sims, a member of the
UAW employee organizing committee, was wearing a union
button at the time Storey told her to take the button
off and that he would see to it that she got as much
time as she needed. A week later, having checked with
the doctor again , she repeated her request. Storey replied
that she had not removed her button. Sims promised to
think about it, but pleaded that at that point she could
think only of her daughter's operation. Storey commented
that he saw that she had not thought about it. Sims did
not remove the button but when the time came Respondent
readily granted her permission to be off. In the first conversa-
tion Storey plainly promised a benefit if Sims would refrain
from exercising her right to wear a union button. By
reproaching her in the second conversation for not having
removed it and for not having "thought about it" he
impliedly threatened that the time off might be withheld
for those reasons. The fact that Sims did ultimately receive
permission to be absent from work did not remove the
coercive tendency and effect of Storey's statements. It is
found that by Storey's statements to Sims Respondent violat-
ed Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
On or about October 1 Bertha Welch, a member of
the employee organizing committee, was in the office of
Pease, her departmental manager, discussing a job-bidding
incident Pease asked her to give him two reasons why
she felt the employees needed a union . Welch said that
she would need time, and he suggested that the conversation
resume the next morning. Welch was wearing a union
badge at the time and Pease commented that the "front
office" were not happy with him. When she asked why,
since he was a fair foreman, he explained, "Well, they
think I have been over you girls long enough now to
have talked you out of those badges." His statement about
"the front office" implied that the employees' persistence
in engaging in their protected right to seek union representa-
tion might result in a foreman known to them as a fair
one being replaced by another who was an unknown quanti-
ty. It is found that Pease's interrogation of Welch was
coercive and violative of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
D. The Discharge of Gloria Sims
Sims started to work for Respondent about September
1966. During organizational campaigns by the International
Association of Machinists in 1967, 1968, and 1969, and
by the UAW in 1969, she was, with Respondent's knowledge,
a member of the various employee organizing committees
and participated in their activities. Respondent rated each
employee at designated periodic intervals and granted
"merit" increases , up to the maximum for each classification,
at least in all cases where performance was considered
generally adequate Sims received such an increase 3 months
after hire and then each 6 months during her employment
except for one instance , in April 1969, described below.
She was discharged on September 9, 1969, the ground
stated was "excessive absenteeism and tardiness "5
Respondent's attendance policy. On January 28, 1969,
Respondent issued and distributed to the employees the
following bulletin, which was a revision of one issued the
previous month-
SUBJECT ABSENCE - REPORTING
It is recognized that a certain number of people will
be unable to report for work each day because of
illness, death in the family, or some other valid reason
Since it is very difficult to plan our work schedule
unless we know in advance the people who will be
unable to report each day, it is requested that employees
cooperate as follows:
(1) If, for any valid reason, an employee wishes
to be excused from work on a particular day,
he should seek advance permission from his super-
visor to be absent on that day.
(2) If an employee is away from the plant and
finds that it will be impossible to come to work,
for example, if he is ill, he should make every
effort to notify the company either by calling
or having someone call if he is unable to do
so. It is necessary that you call in to report
your absence every day.
(3) Calls to report an absence should be made
by calling 351-3040, extension 245, before the
start of the employee's assigned shift, or if this
cannot be done, within two hours after the start
of the shift.
' While at one time Respondent's supervisors were displeased by
Sims' resistant attitude when assigned to different work, this was a
thing of the past at the time of and played no part in, her discharge
Speaking with respect to his rating and warning Sims in April 1969,
Ruh, Respondent's manager of quality control, testified, "As I told you
before, the girl was told she was doing a good job, it was only because
of her absence and tardiness that that reprimand was given "
340 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(4) When an employee calls to report an absence,
the following information should be given-name,
clock number and reason for absence. The person
taking your call will then assign you a number.
This is your report number and is for your protec-
tion if there is any question as to your calling
in or not
(5) Anyone who reports more than 1/2 hour
late should notify the guard so that his name
will be removed from the daily absentee report.
By keeping us informed regarding potential absences,
the employee shows that he has an interest in his
job and also allows the Company to provide the proper
number of employees to perform the scheduled work.
Robers, Respondent's employment manager, testified that
Respondent had no particular standard as to the number
of latenesses or absences that would be a cause for discharge
or other discipline An exception was 3 consecutive days
of unreported absence, which led to automatic termination.
Robers testified, also, that an unreported absence was in
his mind more serious than one that was reported, provided
that the procedure for reporting had been explained to
the employee He said that when an employee failed to
report an absence, the foreman was supposed to make
such an explanation. Robers also testified that absenteeism
could be excessive even if for good cause, such as illness
He also stated that the question of whether an employee
was to be discharged or otherwise disciplined for absenteeism
was determined by his foreman or supervisor, although
Respondent made some effort to obtain a degree of uniformi-
ty with respect to strictness
Sims' attendance through 1968. During the first year
of her employment Sims was absent from work more than
39 times. On May 2, 1967, she received a verbal warning
about absenteeism, and on October 2, 1967, was issued
a written warning for "excessive absenteeism" which stated,
"Future offense will result in time off from work " During
her second year of employment Sims reduced her absences
Nevertheless, in February 1968, while she received her
scheduled merit increase, the recommendation read,
"Increase granted by the narrowest of margins," and it
included the following comment
Absenteeism is a factor in this employee's case, sick
or otherwise, was warned by previous foreman for
absenteeism, occasionally sulks or loafs when asked
to move to another job, but when she applies herself
can do a creditable job
In August 1968 Sims' rating report made the following
recommendation-
Employee has a very poor attendance record plus
being late numerous times. I think employee's raise
should be held for the present until she improves
or see how she is doing now with her present foreman
G. Sorrell
However, Sims was transferred to another department and
was granted the increase In September or October 1968
she became an inspector at the next higher labor grade.
Sims' attendance in 1969: Sims was ill at the beginning
of 1969 and was given a leave of absence which expired
February 2. The following is a summary of her tardiness
and absence from work after the leave of absence
Period
1969
Total
Workdays6
Days
Absent
Times Left
Early Times Late
1 to 17 over 17
minutes minutes?
February 3-Apnl 14 51 16 2 7 1
April 18-June 25 48 3 2 10 4
June 26-September 9 42 3 2 2 1
February 3 was the day following the expiration of her
leave of absence;' April 14 was the day on which she
was given a 3-day suspension and final written warning
for excessive absenteeism. April 18 was the day Sims
returned from her suspension, and June 25 was the day
she received an oral warning for tardiness. September 9
was the day she was discharged.
Sims' final warning for absenteeism: Sims received a
written warning on April 14, 1969, when she returned
after a week's absence from work because of illness. The
warning read in part.
Held back 6 months merit increase (review in 6
months). Given 3 day suspension final warning that
extreme disciplinary action would be taken if situation
did not improve...
Comments: This employee in less than 3 years employ-
ment has had two Leave of Absence granted, has
had several verbal and at least one written warning
in her record about absenteeism
The suspension was April 15 to 17 At that time her
rating was completed by Fred Ruh, the quality control
° A, overtime R.I, %olunt,ln Satiird.t\, and Sunda line not hi.ut
mvluded
\II theca In,tame, msoh cal ' to-1 houw,
° Sims was in fact absent because of illness from December 31, 1968,
to February 7, 1969 When she was rated in April, however, the quality
control manager 's explanation for recommending the 3-day suspension
and final warning referred adversely to her entire absence following
the leave of absence, including February 3 to 7
KDI PRECISION PRODUCTS, INC.
manager, refusing her scheduled periodic merit increase
and containing the following explanation.
17 Days L.O.A. Illness from 1-9-69 to 2-3-69. 19
Days' Absent since above date. Has had previous verbal
and written warnings about excess absenteeism.
The oral warning on June 25: In 8 of the 10 weeks
following her April suspension, Sims was tardy one or
more times Included were three instances in the week
ending June 22, and she was 34 minutes late on June
23. On June 25 Sims telephoned at 6:42 a m. that she
would arrive at 9:30. She arrived at 9:15 and was summoned
to the personnel office, where she was spoken to by Robers
and Ruh.'° Robers demanded to know why she had been
off. She said that she had had personal business to attend
to and that she had called in. Upon his insistence, she
told him that her husband was being sued and that she
had had to see her lawyer. Robers asked why she could
not have done this outside working hours and she replied
that that would have been her preference but that her
lawyer fixed the time she could see him. Ruh and Robers
told Sims that in the past she had been warned about
absenteeism but that now they had looked into her tardiness
for the first time and they told her that she had to improve.
They also emphasized the necessity of complying with
Respondent's call-in procedures " Robers testified that on
that day, when it was noticed that Sims was late, he,
Ruh, and Goodwin, Respondent's employment manager,
conferred and reached a decision that they "would give
her a final verbal warning, in lieu of any termination,
at that point." He also testified, supported by Ruh, that
they gave her a "final verbal warning" as to tardiness
and leaving early, and that Sims was told that her absentee-
ism had not improved enough.12 The foregoing testimony
of Ruh and Robers has not been credited. It is found
that on June 25 Sims was warned that she had to improve
with respect to tardiness, but that nothing was said to
the effect that there had been insufficient improvement
in her absenteeism, or that that was to be a final warning.
' Ruh's original entry, apparently made on April 17, read 16 days,
the correct figure indicated by the timecards as of April 14. The change
to 19 days, which was not explained, was probably arrived at by including
the 3-day suspension
10 Sims, who testified about this incident on cross-examination, placed
it, incorrectly, at 6 weeks after her April warning Robers placed it
"towards the end of June " Sims' timecard and her absence report for
June 25 are consistent with her description of the incident
" Sims, without exception, had complied with Respondent's rule by
calling in by 9 o'clock when she was to be absent However, the bulletin
stated that calls were to be made prior to starting time, i e , 7 a in
if possible Sims' calls were made after 7 in more than half the cases.
" Two of Sims' three absences and both instances of her leaving
early during the period since her final warning were the following May
6, when she took a sick child to the hospital, and the prior day, when
she left at 10 24; and May 22, when she received an emergency call
at the plant to go to the hospital, where her husband had been taken
after a collapse, and the following day, when she was with her husband
at the hospital The day of her other absence she reported that she
was ill and saw a doctor Except for May 5 and 22, when she left
the plant early, all these instances were called in by Sims and were
recorded on Respondent's absentee reports, with the reasons given No
claim has been made that Sims left the plant early on any occasion
without permission , and it is inferred that she did have permission to
do so on May 5 and 22 as well as all other occasions when she left
early
341
Sims' attendance from June 26 to September 8. On July
23 and August 12 Sims punched in 6 minutes and 5
minutes late, respectively; she was docked one tenth of
an hour on each occasion. Shortly prior to August 1 Ruh
received a telephone call from a lawyer who said that
Sims had to attend a bankruptcy hearing on August 1
but had refused to go on the ground that she would
lose her job if she remained away from work Ruh instructed
Sims' foreman to give her permission to be off and to
tell her, "anything we can do to help her, we would
be glad to help her." As to this same occasion Robers
testified, " . . . she was granted permission. We advised
her that if she had a problem we would try to work
with her and try to give her permission whenever possible "
On August 7 Sims left work 2 hours early and was docked.
The record does not show the circumstances; however,
for reasons already stated, it is inferred that she had permis-
sion to leave. On Thursday, August 14, Sims left work
about 35 minutes early, and she was absent all day on
August 15 and 18. As already described, Sims had twice
previously notified her foreman that she expected to need
time off when her daughter would be hospitalized. Notwith-
standing Storey's attempt to utilize the occasion to induce
Sims to remove her union badge, when, on August 14,
she received an emergency call at the plant to go to the
hospital, she was readily granted permission to do so and
to be absent on August 15. She was not docked for leaving
early on August 14 Sims remained out on August 18
also, reporting that she was sick. She testified that she
received permission to be out on both days. Ruh testified
that she was given permission to be off on Friday and
he stated:
I even explained to her then, "Gloria, this is
the way it should be done." And I said, "You see
how we are always willing to help," and that "by
letting us know ahead of time we can plan our work
schedules, we can plan around these sort of situations,"
and I congratulated her for doing it the right way."
During the remaining 3 weeks of her employment, from
August 19 through September 8, Sims' record as to attend-
ance at work and tardiness was perfect."
Sims' discharge: Sims testified as to September 9 as
follows Between 7:30 and 8 or 8:15 am she telephoned
the plant and asked for the personnel department. Asked
to hold the line because it was busy, she attempted to
reach her foreman, Sam Storey. After some difficulty she
finally spoke to the secretary of Storey's superior, one
Barbara, and asked her to tell Storey that she would be
2 hours late because she had to take her child to school.
After finishing at school she drove to the plant, where
" Ruh also testified that after the June 25 warning Sims "
improved as far as reporting that she was going to be absent, asking
for permission to be off for a specific reason " Respondent at no time
raised issue with Sims as to her absence on August 18
" On June 27 Sims punched out 1 minute early but was not docked
Employees had 5 minutes washup time at the end of their shift but
were not supposed to punch out before 3 30 However, the present
instance had apparently not come to the attention of Robers He did
not enter it on Sims' attendance card, moreover, he testified that he
did not know what the practice was if an employee punched out before
the end of the washup period.
342 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
she arrived 1 or 2 minutes before 9 and met Storey, who
instructed her where to go to work In response to her
inquiry he said that he had got her message She punched
in at 9:01 and went to work. During the afternoon she
apologized to Barbara for troubling her with the message
and thanked her; Barbara said, "Oh that's okay. I didn't
mind." Neither Storey nor Barbara testified. Towards the
close of the shift Storey told Sims, "Personnel wants you,"
and both proceeded there and spoke with Robers When
Sims, in response to Robers' question, said that she had
called in, he said that the personnel department had not
received any message Sims replied that she had called
in "downstairs" and Storey confirmed that he had received
the message Robers told Sims that the procedure was
to call the personnel department, not the foreman, and
he told her she was discharged. Robers testified as follows-
On September 9 he happened to see Sims arrive about
9 o'clock. Upon checking, he learned from Storey that
she had no prior permission and learned from the guards,
the records office, and "downstairs inspection" that she
had not called in. He then had a meeting with Storey,
Ruh and Goodwin, at which it was decided to examine
the records to see how many infractions there had been
by Sims as to tardiness or absenteeism since her "final
verbal warning in June," and then to make a final decision
as to disciplinary action. He thereupon personally checked
Sims' timecards and absence reports since the end of June
and made entries on her attendance record indicating the
instances when she had arrived late or left early since
that time.13 Absences had already been noted on the card
routinely by the personnel records office He brought the
card, with his findings, to Goodwin and conferred with
him as to what disciplinary action should be taken Those
two decided to terminate Sims. He did not testify that
Ruh, Storey or anyone else participated in that final decision.
Towards the end of the shift, Robers testified, he had
Storey bring Sims to the personnel office, where he told
her, "that she was late this particular day, and that she
had a bad attendance record as far as attendance itself,
lateness, and leaving early, and that we would have to
terminate her on this ground." On cross-examination he
testified, "I believe that about all that was said
was . . something to the effect that 'your attendance has
not improved, and for this reason we are going to have to
discharge you ' " Robers recalled nothing that she replied
other than that she objected to her foreman emptying her
locker of her personal belongings More specifically, he
testified that Sims said nothing to the effect that she had
permission to come in late or that she had called in and
reported that she would be late. The Trial Examiner has
credited Sims
Concluding Findings as to Sims' Discharge
The reason stated for Sims' discharge on her final "per-
sonnel change notice" was "excessive absenteeism and tardi-
" Robers incorrectly entered Sims' lateness on July 23 as 10 minutes,
instead of 6 minutes as shown on the timecard, and for July 21 he
entered "late 4 Hrs" for time which the card earned as, and which
he testified was, a half-holiday His other "late" entries did not state
the extent of lateness
ness," and Robers testified that he told Sims that she
was being discharged because her attendance record was
bad and had not improved. The General Counsel contends
that this ground was a pretext advanced by Respondent
to justify "its action in ridding itself of one of its primary
union adherents." Respondent contends that Sims was dis-
charged in the ordinary course of business for cause and
that in fact "the Company went more than an extra mile
with Sims."
The first, albeit not the ultimate, question that must
be decided is whether Sims' absences and tardiness were
in fact excessive when measured by Respondent's policies.
The record shows that Respondent considered attendance
a matter of importance; and even absences for good reason,
such as illness, could contribute to what it considered
excessive absenteeism. At the same time Respondent's bulle-
tin shows that Respondent accepted the fact that from
time to time employees would necessarily miss work Indeed,
when Sims was granted permission to be absent on August
1 she was assured that Respondent would always try to
be helpful and give permission in such a situation; and
Ruh's congratulations, when, only 2 weeks later, she again
needed permission to be off, demonstrate that so long
as absences for reasons which Respondent deemed sufficient
did not reach undue proportions, they were not held against
an employee. Moreover, Sims had ultimately responded
well to Respondent's efforts to bring her up to an acceptable
level as to attendance. After her final warning and suspension
in April she lowered her absences from 16 or 31 percent,
in the period between her leave of absence and April
14, to 3 or 61/4 percent, in the period between April
18 and June 25
The key period for purposes of this case was June 26
to September 9, since Robers testified that the decision
to discharge Sims was based upon his personal study of
her record during that time. Sims responded to the oral
warning on June 25 for tardiness by reducing her latenesses
from fourteen, or 29 percent, during the earlier period
to two or 4-3/4 percent, for the period from June 25
through September 8, the day preceding her discharge.
Her absences remained at three, which was less than 7
percent, and she left early twice. It has already been found
that Sims had permission to leave on those two occasions.
In view of the amount of tardiness Respondent had tolerated
prior to June 25 without even calling the problem to
Sims' attention, it must be inferred that her two latenesses,
5 and 6 minutes on July 23 and August 12, were not
considered by Respondent to be out of line. As to her
three absences during the period, at least two were author-
ized in advance and plainly in the "excused" category;
and Respondent at no time questioned the legitimacy of
Sims' report that she was sick on the occasion of the
third absence. She did call in, and Ruh did not withdraw
or qualify the congratulations he had extended to Sims
shortly before.
Respondent placed in evidence certain attendance records,
warnings, and termination actions for Audrey Williams,
Cleada Kidd, and Phyllis Jeffries, employees who were
discharged for absenteeism on August 12, September 3,
and September 11, 1969, respectively, and contends that
these records demonstrate that Respondent gave Sims more
KDI PRECISION PRODUCTS, INC. 343
chance to improve than was given to those three. As
only vague testimony was offered as to how these records
were selected , and as Respondent had no specific standards
as to absenteeism , valid comparisons cannot be made on
the basis of the bare fact that these three employees were
discharged . Moreover , the three records affirmatively dis-
close shortcomings not applicable to Sims-complete failure
to report some absences , below -average evaluations as to
"attitude toward work" in two of the cases and, in the
third , a heavy incidence of absences which could have
been part of extended weekends. In addition , the three
employees ' absentee rates were double that maintained by
Sims since April 14
It is found that during the period June 26 to September
8 Sims' attendance at work was within acceptable limits
under Respondent 's policies.
The events of September 9 will now be considered. Much
testimony was adduced as to whether Sims had advance
permission to be late on that day The Trial Examiner
found McCollum and Welch credible witnesses and finds
that Sims did notify Tuttle on September 8 that she would
be late the next morning Respondent contends that para-
graph ( 1) of its bulletin already quoted and an incident
involving Neda Hunt establish that such advance permission
was required . The rule is at best ambiguous so far as
late arrival is concerned and the more probable meaning
is that it applied only to full-day absences. The Hunt
incident involved an employee leaving work in the middle
of the day, not one arriving late. It is found that Respondent
had no rule requiring advance permission to come to work
late The Trial Examiner notes, also , that at the time
of her discharge Sims was not criticized for any failure
to obtain advance permission , and uncontradicted evidence
establishes that immediately after Sims ' discharge Storey
told Bertha Welch that it did not matter whether Sims
had asked Tuttle for time off. He said, "That's not the
reason we 're letting her go."
Tuttle was not in the plant during the morning of Septem-
ber 9, and Sims did not inform Robers during her exit
interview that she had notified Tuttle of her expected
absence . It may well be that the conversation between
Sims and Tuttle ought to have affected Robers ' decision
if he had known about it, but there is insufficient evidence
that he did know. It is therefore unnecessary for purposes
of this case to resolve the issues of Tuttle's supervisory
or other authority or whether what was said constituted
permission to Sims to be late.
Sims' credited evidence establishes that on September
9 she notified Storey, her foreman , through Barbara, that
she would be late that day, and that Storey received the
message before 9 o'clock , the deadline for calling in 16
As Robers testified that he thereafter conferred with Storey
about Sims ' late arrival that day, it is inferred that Storey
told him that he had been notified , and Robers ' testimony
that he was informed by "downstairs inspection " that Sims
had not called in has not been credited . In addition, the
Trial Examiner has credited Sims' testimony as to her
exit interview and finds that Storey there acknowledged
having received her message and that Robers' reply was
merely that she was supposed to call the personnel depart-
ment . Sims admitted that since her transfer to inspection
she had made such calls to the personnel department,"
and it is found that on September 9 that was the proper
place for her to telephone
A number of factors present in this case raise doubt
as to Respondent 's motivation . Foreman Storey , who was
the one who would normally initiate a discharge in his
department, failed to testify Moreover , Sims' notification
to Storey did not show a complete disregard of Respondent's
requirements, and her lapse in failing to call the personnel
department does not appear to have been especially grave.
While Robers testified that he had ascertained that Sims
had failed to call the personnel department , he did not
recall having mentioned such failure to Sims in her discharge
interview , Indeed , Respondent 's brief ignores the message
to Storey . On the other hand , Sims knew that the right
procedure was to call the personnel department . The reason
she called Storey instead was that she had failed to make
her call before 7 a m., as Respondent's bulletin required
whenever that was possible, and thus found herself too
rushed to wait until a line to the personnel department
was available In view of the efforts Respondent had made
to bring Sims into compliance with its policies, it was
not unreasonable for Respondent to feel , notwithstanding
her improvement , that she remained a problem employee
with respect to attendance and attendance procedures.
In this situation an important consideration is the weak-
ness of the evidence pointing to union animus as the motiva-
tion for Sims' discharge . Respondent , it is true , was opposed
to the unionization of its employees and it engaged in
some unfair labor practices . However , some of these unfair
labor practices, such as the illegal rule against distribution
and solicitation in the present case , apparently resulted
from a misunderstanding of its own legal rights and obliga-
tions, and none were of an aggravated nature Respondent's
actions do not necessarily show a disposition to discriminate.
Indeed , Sims had engaged in unionization campaigns with-
out being discriminated against in the past when her more
recent employee status and considerably worse absentee
record made her vulnerable to discharge, and the General
Counsel has not shown any special happening with respect
to unionization around September 9 that would particularly
induce Respondent to discriminate against Sims or any
other member of the employee organizing committee at
that time.
It is found that the General Counsel has failed to prove
by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent's dis-
charge of Sims was discriminatory.
IV THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON
COMMERCE
It is found that the activities of Respondent set forth
in section III, above , occurring in connection with its
" The call-in requirement was applicable even when employees had
advance permission to be absent
" Before the company switchboard opened calls were routed directly
to the guards
344 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
operations described in section 1, have a close, intimate,
and substantial relationship to trade, traffic, and commerce
among the several States and tend to lead to labor disputes
burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow
of commerce
V. THE REMEDY
As it has been found that Respondent has engaged in
certain unfair labor practices, it is recommended that the
Board issue the Recommended Order set forth below requir-
ing Respondent to cease and desist from its unfair labor
practices and to take certain affirmative action which will
effectuate the policies of the Act.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and
of the entire record in this case, the Trial Examiner makes
the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1 Respondent, KDI Precision Products, Inc., is engaged
in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7)
of the Act.
2 Respondent is, and at all times material has been,
an employer within the meaning of Section 2(2) of the
Act.
3. International Uniori, United Automobile, Aerospace
and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, UAW,
is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5)
of the Act.
4. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing employees
in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the
Act, Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
5 The unfair labor practices described above are unfair
labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
6. By terminating the employment of Gloria Sims,
Respondent has not engaged in unfair labor practices within
the meaning of the Act.
other labor organization during their nonworking time,
or maintaining any rule or regulation containing such pro-
hibition.
(c) Promising employees benefits if they refrain from
engaging in activities on behalf of, or if they give up
their membership in, the UAW or any other labor organiza-
tion.
(d) Threatening employees with refusal to grant time
off or any other benefits because of their membership
in or activity on behalf of the UAW or any other labor
organization
(e) Interrogating employees concerning their union mem-
bership or desires in a manner , or under circumstances,
constituting interference , restraint, or coercion within the
meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
(f) In any like or related manner interfering with , restrain-
ing, or coercing employees in the exercise of rights under
Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which, it is
found , will effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Expunge from the personnel record of Bonnie Durham
and all other records of Respondent the warning issued
to her on June 20, 1969, and all notations referring thereto
or to her solicitation of any employees on behalf of the
UAW.
(b) Post at its office and place of business located in
Norwood , Ohio, copies of the attached notice marked
"Appendix."" Copies of said notice , on forms provided
by the Regional Director for Region 9, after being duly
signed by its representatives , shall be posted immediately
upon receipt thereof and be maintained by it for 60 consecu-
tive days thereafter , in conspicuous places, including all
places where notices to employees are customarily posted.
Reasonable steps shall be taken to ensure that said notices
are not altered , defaced , or covered by any other material
(c) Notify said Regional Director for Region 9, in writing,
within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision, what
steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith.19
IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the allegation that
Respondent discharged and failed to reinstate Gloria Sims
in violation of the Act be dismissed.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
On the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclu-
sions of law, and upon the entire record in this case,
and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, as amended, Respondent KDI Precision Products,
Inc , its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1 Cease and desist from:
(a) Prohibiting employees from distributing union litera-
ture during their nonworking time in nonwork areas, or
promulgating or maintaining any rule or regulation contain-
ing such prohibition.
(b) In any manner prohibiting employees from soliciting
their fellow employees on behalf of the UAW or any
18 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, recommendations and Recommended Order
herein shall, as provided in Sec 102 48 of the Rules and Regulations,
automatically become the findings, conclusions , Decision and Order of
the Board, 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 be
changed to read "Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States
Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations
Board."
" In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the
Board, this provision shall be modified to read- "Notify the Regional
Director for Region 9, in writing, within 10 days from the date of
this Order, what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith "
KDI PRECISION PRODUCTS, INC 345
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL expunge from the personnel record of
Bonnie Durham , and from all other company records,
the warning issued to her on or about June 20, 1969.
WE WILL NOT prohibit you from distributing union
literature during nonworking time in nonworking areas,
and WE WILL NOT promulgate or maintain any
rule or regulation containing such prohibition.
WE WILL NOT in any manner prohibit you from
soliciting your fellow employees on behalf of the Inter-
national Union , United Automobile and Aerospace
and Agricultural Implement Workers of America
(UAW) or any other labor organization during non-
working time, and WE WILL NOT maintain any
rule or regulation containing such prohibition.
WE WILL NOT promise you benefits if you refrain
from engaging in activities on behalf of, or if you
give up membership in, the UAW or any other labor
organization.
WE WILL NOT threaten you with refusal to grant
time off or other benefits because of your membership
in, or activity on behalf of, the UAW or any other
labor organization.
WE WILL NOT question you about your union mem-
bership or desires in a coercive manner or under coer-
cive circumstances
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere
with , restrain , or coerce you in the exercise of your
rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, except to
the extent that such rights might be affected by an
agreement requiring membership in a labor organization
as a condition of employment as authorized in Section
8(a)(3) of the Act, as modified by the Labor- Manage-
ment Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959
Date By
KDI PRECISION PRODUCTS,
INC.
(Employer)
(Representative)
(Title)
This is an official notice and must not be defaced by
anyone.
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days
from the date of posting and must not be altered, defaced,
or covered by any other material.
Any questions concerning this notice or compliance with
its provisions may be directed to the Board 's Office, Room
2407, Federal Office Building, 550 Main Street , Cincinnati,
Ohio 45202, Telephone 513-684-3686.