M. C. Ricciardi Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 16, 1969

180 N.L.R.B. 195 (N.L.R.B. 1969)

M. C. RICCIARDI COMPANY
M. C. Ricciardi Company and Textile Workers
Union of America, AFL-CIO. Case 22-CA-3805
December 16, 1969
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MCCUL LOCH AND MEMBERS
BROWN AND ZAGORIA
On September 22, 1969, Trial Examiner Harry H.
Kuskin issued his Decision in the above-entitled
proceeding, finding that the 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.
Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the
Trial Examiner's Decision,' a supporting brief, and
a motion to reopen the record.2
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 this case 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
hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial
Examiner's Decision, the exceptions and brief, and
the entire record in the case, 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
Relations Board adopts as its Order the
Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner and
hereby orders that the Respondent, M. C. Ricciardi
Company, Alpha, New Jersey, its officers, agents,
successors, and assigns, shall take the action set
forth in the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order.
The Respondent's exceptions to the Trial Examiner ' s Decision , ; in
large part directed to his credibility resolutions We will not overrule a
Trial Examiner's credibility resolutions unless a clear preponderance of all
the relevant evidence convinces us that they are incorrect Such a
conclusion is not warranted here . Standard Dry Wall Products , Inc , 91
NLRB 544, enfd 188 F 2d 362 (C A 3) We also find no merit in the
Respondent 's charge of bias and prejudice on the part of the Trial
Examiner
'With its exceptions to the Trial Examiner ' s Decision , Respondent filed
a motion to reopen the record to allow the production of evidence which, it
contends , it could not produce at the hearing because it did not have
sufficient time The Respondent requested and had been granted a 2 weeks'
postponement of the hearing and at no time indicated to the Trial
Examiner that it needed additional time to produce evidence . The motion
is hereby denied on the ground that sufficient reason has not been shown
why the proffered evidence was not submitted at the hearing before the
Trial Examiner Mid-South Towing Company , 177 NLRB No 123
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
195
HARRY H KUSKIN, Trial Examiner This proceeding
was heard at Newark, New Jersey, on August 12, 1969. A
complaint issued herein on July 7, 1969, based on a
charge and a first amended charge filed on May 23 and
June 20, 1969, respectively. The complaint alleges, in
substance, that M.C. Ricciardi Company, herein called
Respondent, has violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act (1) by
promulgating, publishing, and maintaining a
no-solicitation rule prior to February 1, 1969, and at all
times relevant thereafter, in order to prevent its employees
from giving support to, or engaging in activities on behalf
of, a labor organization on its premises, without regard to
whether such activities should occur during nonworking
hours; (2) by threatening employees with discharge if they
distributed union authorization cards on behalf of Textile
Workers Union of America, AFL-CIO, herein called the
Union; and (3) by interrogating its employees concerning
their membership and activities on behalf of the Union.
Respondent's answer denies that it has violated the Act in
any respect alleged herein.
Upon the entire record, including my observation of the
witnesses, including their demeanor while on the witness
stand, and after due consideration of the briefs of the
General Counsel and Respondent, I make the following
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT
The complaint alleges, and Respondent admits, that it
is a New Jersey corporation engaged in the manufacture,
sale, and distribution of military ammunition containers
and related products at various plants in New Jersey,
including its Tung-Sol and Kings plants in Washington,
New Jersey, and its Alpha plant, in Alpha, New Jersey,
that during the 12 months preceding the complaint, which
is representative of its operations at all times material
herein, it manufactured, sold, and distributed products
valued in excess of $50,000, pursuant to contracts with
various branches of the United States Government,
including the United States Department of the Army,
which manufactured products directly related to national
defense and had a substantial impact upon national
defense. I find, upon the foregoing, as Respondent also
admits, that Respondent is engaged in commerce within
the meaning of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Respondent agrees, and I find, that Textile Workers
Union of America, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization
within the meaning of the Act.
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The no-solicitation rule'
The no-solicitation rule which is in issue herein is the
one that was admittedly published and posted by
Respondent in its Alpha, New Jersey, and Washington,
New Jersey, plants from some time prior to February 1,
'Unless otherwise indicated , the findings hereinafter are based on
undenied or uncontroverted testimony , which I credit
180 NLRB No. 48
196 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
1969, until July 10, 1969.2 It reads, as follows:
NOTICE
TO ALL CONCERNED:
THE M .C. RICCIARDI COMPANY WILL NOT PERMIT ANY
TYPE OF SOLICITATION ON COMPANY PREMISES OR
DURING WORKING HOURS WITHOUT DEFINITE
CLEARANCE BY MANAGEMENT.
ANY PERSON OR PERSONS IN VIOLATION OF THE ABOVE
REGULATION WILL BE DISMISSED AT ONCE.
ALL PEOPLE PUNCHING OUT SHALL TRY TO LEAVE THE
PREMISES PROMPTLY TO SAFEGUARD INSURANCE
REGULATIONS.
AUTHORIZED BY
MANAGEMENT
M.C. RICCIARDI
On the latter date, which was 3 days after the filing of the
complaint herein, Respondent changed the rule, on advice
of counsel, and posted the rule in the same manner as the
old rule. This rule, as changed, reads as follows:
NOTICE
TO ALL CONCERNED:
Owing to the misinterpretation of our long standing
no-solicitation rule, the subscribing Company has
decided to revoke that rule as of this date and to
substitute therefore (sic), the following clear and
unambiguous rules, to wit:
1. To insure efficient production and proper
discipline , the Company will not permit any type of
solicitation by its employees in work areas during their
regular or scheduled working hours.
2 All employees shall leave the plant promptly after
punching out.
3. No employee shall interfere with the work or the
production efforts of any other employee by any means
4. Any employee who violates any of the above rules
will be discharged.
ISSUED AND POSTED: July 10, 1969
M.C. RICCIARDI
COMPANY
By:
Charles M. DeReamns
Personnel Manager
It is not contended that the
the Act in any respect.
rule, as changed, contravenes
As to the rule in issue, it is apparent from its language,
as set forth above, that, on its face, it prohibits
solicitation of all kinds, including that for a union, during
nonworking time on plant premises without company
authorization. It is well established that employees have
the right to solicit for a union and to engage in union
activities on an employer's property so long as they do not
do so during working time. A plant rule which interferes
with the exercise of this protected right, as here, by
conditioning its exercise on the employer's permission is
presumed, in the absence of special circumstances, to fall
within the proscription of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. And
it is also well established that the burden of overcoming
this presumption of illegality in such a broad
no-solicitation rule rests upon the employer in an unfair
labor practice case.'
'All dates hereinafter are in 1969
I am satisfied on this record that Respondent has not
sustained the burden of showing special justifying
considerations. Although Matthew C. Ricciardi,
Respondent's president, testified that Respondent sought
by its rule to prevent the disruption of production which
could result from uncontrolled solicitations for funds or
selling by employees, such mere assertion fails to establish
how solicitation in the plant, during nonworking hours,'
did, or could, affect or threaten production. Accordingly,
since Respondent has failed to show special circumstances
for attaching conditions and qualifications to its
no-solicitation rule on nonworking time, it follows that, by
requiring therein that employees obtain permission before
engaging in union solicitation during nonworking time,
Respondent unlawfully predicated upon its authorization
the employees' exercise of their rights under Section 7 of
the Act freely to engage in union solicitation during such
periods.'
As noted above, Respondent admits that it published
and posted the above rule in its plants during the
above-mentioned period. However, it denies that, as
alleged in the complaint, it maintained and enforced the
rule with respect to its employees during nonworking
hours. In this connection, Ricciardi testified that he did
not mind the passing out of union cards on company
premises "as long as it was done on off-working hours."
Yet, it is apparent that he never communicated this
information directly to the employees during the pendency
of the rule. Nor did Respondent post anything so to
qualify the rule or explain it until July 10, 3 days after the
complaint issued herein. And while Ricciardi testified, at
one point, that he made his position on solicitation during
nonworking hours known to his foremen, when asked by
counsel for the General Counsel, during cross
examination, whether he ever told his supervisors to
convey the information to the employees that solicitation
was allowed during nonworking hours, even though the
posted rule said otherwise, he said that he was unable to
answer the question. In addition, admitted supervisor John
Slack, Jr , testified that he received no such instructions
from his superiors at the "two or three" meetings of
supervisors that he did attend.' Furthermore, employees
Carrie Shepard, Doris Gerstenberg, Doris D. Alvin and
Rosemary Lockhart, who impressed me as reliable
witnesses and worthy of credit, each testified that at no
time did she receive any such clarification from a
representative of management.
In addition, there is testimony in the record as to how
the rule was, in fact, enforced. Thus, there is testimony,
which is mutually corroborative in many respects, by
employees Shepard, Gerstenberg, and Alvin that
employees have, in the past, been allowed to take up
collections in the Alpha plant both during working hours
and nonworking hours for Christmas presents for
individual supervisors, and for employees who were sick
or who suffered some personal tragedy. And Slack also
'See Republic Aviation Corp v N L R B, 324 U.S 793, 803-804, fn 10,
N.L R.B . v. Walton Mfg Co, 289 F 2d 177, 180 (C.A. 5), enfg 126
NLRB 697, N L R B. v United Aircraft Corp., 324 F 2d 128 (C A. 2),
cert. denied 376 U.S 591, Stoddard-Quirk Manufacturing Co, 138 NLRB
615
'Respondent concedes that lunch periods and break periods constitute
nonworking time
'See Fasco Industries , Inc. v. N.L R B. 412 F 2d 589 (C A 5 ), enfg in
relevant part 173 NLRB No. 85
'Slack explained that he had been on the night shift ever since he
became a foreman and most of the meetings of supervisors were in the
daytime when he was sleeping.
M. C. RICCIARDI COMPANY
testified that he gave permission for such collections
"quite a few times" in sickness and tragedy situations. In
addition, there is testimony by these three named
employees establishing that employee Phyllis Solomon has
sold Avon products, consisting of cosmetics etc., during
both working hours and nonworking hours in the plant
and that employee Julie Shotwell has sold Tupperware
products during such periods. Both Solomon and Shotwell
did their selling via catalogues, and would, at times, leave
the catalogues with the employee being solicited. In some
instances, employees would look at the catalogues at their
machines during working hours and would then write
down the product or products to be ordered.' As to the
catalogue selling , Slack testified that "many times [he]
told them no soliciting , no buying and selling and stuff
with these books." However, I note, in this connection,
that Slack admitted that he "never bothered to try and
find out" who was doing the selling . Since I find it
difficult to believe that Slack would have tried to stop the
selling activity in the plant without ever trying to find out
who was responsible therefor, and since I find hereinafter
that Slack's testimony in other respects is not worthy of
credit, I do not credit his testimony that he tried to stop
such selling or soliciting in the plant.
The foregoing is to be appraised in the light of further
testimony as to what occurred in the plant at about 6 or
6:30 p.m., on March 19. Preliminarily, it should be noted
that earlier that afternoon about ten employees of
Respondent attended a union meeting in Phillipsburg,
New Jersey; that, among these employees, were Shepard,
Alvin, Gerstenberg, Hilda Rogers and Marguerite Rogers;
and that, after leaving the meeting but before reporting to
work that day, at 5 p.m., their regularly scheduled time,
Shepard, Alvin and Gerstenberg distributed some union
authorization cards to Respondent's employees on
Respondent's parking lot which adjoins the Alpha plant.
As to the subsequent events that afternoon, employees
Shepard and Gerstenberg gave the following mutually
corroborative testimony: Admitted supervisor John Slack,
Jr., who is in full charge of the night shift,' personally
approached them, as well as Allen, Hilda Rogers and
Marguerite Rogers, at their places of work on the
production line and told them to go to his office.9 In the
office, Slack held up a union authorization card and
admonished the employees that, if he caught any one
giving them out in the plant, that person would be
discharged. It was their recollection that nothing else was
said by Slack. Employee Alvin testified in corroboration
of the testimony by Shepard and Gerstenberg, except that
it was also her testimony, at one point, that Slack said
further that what the employees do on their own time is
their own business but they could not do so "on time in
the place"; and, at another point, that Slack said that the
foregoing prohibition related to the premises or company
time. On this entire record, I am persuaded, and find, that
Alvin gave a more complete version of the meeting with
Slack and that Slack did make comments of this kind to
the five assembled employees. And I am satisfied, and
find, that the sum and substance of Alvin' s additional
testimony was, under either version, that Slack then told
the employees that they were not free to engage in such
activity at any time while on company premises, thereby
reiterating , in effect, the existing no-solicitation rule.10
'It was stipulated by the parties , in effect , that , if Rosemary Lockhart
were to testify on the matter of solicitation and selling by employees in the
plant, her testimony would be similar to that of these three employees
'The total complement on the night shift consisted of about 60
197
In respect to the foregoing, Slack admitted that he
called the five above-mentioned employees to his office
about 6:30 p.m. He gave as his reason for doing so that,
starting shortly after 5 p.m., employees began to leave
their machines "off and on" and talk to others; that the
situation became progressively worse; and that this was
affecting production. More particularly, as to the extent of
the movement around the plant, Slack testified variously
(1) that these five employees "seemed to be walking
around the most," talking to others; (2) that only these
five employees were away from their jobs talking to other
employees; (3) that there came a time just before he called
these five employees in the office "when everybody left
their jobs, when everything stopped, then everybody was
walking away. I didn't know what they were doing"; and
(4) that just prior to calling these five employees into the
office, "they were at their jobs" and "[he had] no idea"
how long they had been at their jobs. Further, as to the
impact of this movement about the plant on production,
Slack also testified variously (1) that "it wasn't bad and
production was going good until the time he called the
employees into the office and it just kept going down
hill"; (2) that the other people were at their jobs and
ready to work but they did not have the materials to work
with because of the disruption of flow of work caused by
these five employees; and (3) that it was just a slowdown
rather than a case of employees not having any work to
do.
The testimony of Slack as to the ensuing episode in his
office was, like the foreging, also lacking in forthrightness
and, at times, contradictory. Thus, he testified that he told
the five assembled employees that he "knew that these
cards were being passed out and any more solicitation of
any kind, books, all that kind of stuff, that he would fire
them." Yet, he denied that he mentioned the Union to
them or that he talked to President Ricciardi about the
card when he reached him on the telephone and discussed
the situation at the plant with him, which discussion
resulted in instructions to call this meeting. And while he
testified that he saw union cards on the plant floor and
picked them up, his testimony varied as to what he did
with these cards, saying, at first, that he put them on his
desk but he does not know exactly what he did with them
next; and saying, at a later point, that he does not know
whether he threw them in the garbage after he picked
them up or had them in or on his desk. Also, although
pressed for an answer, he replied that he could not recall
whether (as testified to by Shepard, Alvin and
Gerstenberg) he held a union card in his hand while
talking to them. It is also clear from the record that Slack
was instructed by Ricciardi not only to call this meeting
but to make sure that the employees knew the rules of
no-solicitation. In this connection, Slack's testimony, at
one point was that, in explaining the rule to them he told
them that he "didn't care what they did on their own time
but don't do it on my time which was during working
hours." Yet, as already found, the rule, on its face,
prohibited solicitation in the plant during nonworking
time. Also noteworthy, in this connection, is Slack's
further testimony that he did not tell the employees that it
would be all right to do soliciting on company premises
employees, of whom about 45 were production Ime employees.
'Shepard testified that , at the time in question , the office was located in
an area which housed Slack 's desk and was also used as a lunchroom. At
the time of the hearing , the area was being used only as a lunchroom
"Ricciardi testified that company premises , under that no-solicitation
rule, included the parking lot adjoining the Alpha plant
198 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
during their own time, and that he did not clarify to them
what he meant by nonworking time. In all these
circumstances, it strains one's credulity to believe that
Slack told these five employees, in contravention of the
established rule, either directly or by implication, that
they were free to engage in solicitation in the plant on
their own time. In this connection, I find totally
unconvincing and incredible Slack's testimony that,
although the rule referred to "solicitation on company
premises or during working hours, he did not, at that
time, interpret this language in the disjunctive.
As I have heretofore found that Slack was not a
forthright or convincing witness and that his testimony
was, at times, contradictory; and since his version of the
meeting is at odds, in many significant respects, with that
of Shepard, Alvin, and Gerstenberg, who impressed me, I
have found, as reliable witnesses and who gave mutually
corroborative testimony as to much of what occurred at
the meeting, I credit their testimony and discredit the
testimony of Slack. And since, as also found above, I
have found that Alvin gave a more comprehensive version
of the meeting episode, I find further that her version
more accurately reflects what took place at the meeting.
With respect to the situation existing in the plant prior
to the meeting, there was mutually consistent testimony,
on rebuttal, by Shepard, Gerstenberg and Alvin that they
neither passed out cards in the plant after they started
work on March 19, nor left their machines to talk to
anyone about the Union or about anything, nor saw any
groups of employees milling around when they should
have been working." This testimony was in direct
contradiction of Slack's testimony. Casting serious doubt
on Slack's version, that all of the above was going on and
that it was adversely affecting production to the point that
he felt impelled to do something about it, is his admission
that, at no time during the meeting, did he mention
anything about production to the employees; and, further,
nowhere does it appear that Slack spoke to any of these
five assembled employees about production before the
meeting that day. In all these circumstances, including the
fact that Slack did not impress me as a reliable witness
whereas Shepard, Gerstenberg, Alvin, and Lockhart did so
impress me, I conclude, and find, contrary to the
testimony of Slack, that the record fails to establish that
anything untoward occurred in the plant's operations
during the hour and a half, or so, preceding the meeting,
or that there was any nexus between what occurred in the
plant during that period and the meeting which followed.' I
Rather do I infer, and find, particularly in light of Slack's
admission that he knew that cards were being passed out,
that Slack called these five employees into the office, all
of whom had attended the union meeting earlier that day
and three of whom had distributed union authorization
cards on the company parking lot thereafter but before
the night shift began, in order to counteract such union
activity, including the distribution of union authorization
cards.
"Employee Lockhart also testified that she did not engage in such
conduct on March 19, nor did she see any groups milling around during
working time.
"In this connection, I do not credit the testimony of President Ricciardi
that, during the telephone conversation with Slack, which resulted in his
instructions to Slack to call the meeting, Slack told him that employees
"were passing out cards disrupting production, with a couple of situations
where the people were arguing, didn't want to take the cards." Ricciardi
did not testify in a forthright manner, at times, ( e.g., see discussion supra
of his testimony with respect to conveying his claimed interpretation of the
no-solicitation rule to his supervisors) and he did not impress me as a
The record also discloses , in this latter connection,
undenied testimony by employee Gerstenberg that (1) on
March 20, when she was on her way to the ladies room,
she overheard her supervisor, Slack, say to his father, an
employee, "There goes a union man"; (2) later that
evening , while she was in the office arranging with office
employee Doris Bray to have her order supper to be
brought into the plant "for the girls" on the night shift,
Slack came into the office and said, upon being told by
Bray what was taking place, "Oh, I thought maybe she
was trying to give you a union card"; and (3) on one
occasion, when she was leaving the office, Slack said to
her, "Doris, I never thought you would do this"; and, in
response to her query as to what he meant, Slack
answered, "Be a union man .1113
I am not persuaded that either items (1) or (3) exceeded
permissible bounds under the Act. However, with respect
to item (2), since Slack had, the night before during the
meeting with the five employees, including her, threatened
to discharge any employee who distributed a card on plant
premises, I am persuaded that Slack thereby implied to
Gerstenberg that he meant to carry out the threat, witness
the fact that he was then on the lookout to see whether
she was engaging in such distribution in the plant. I
therefore conclude, and find, that, by Slack's direct threat
to the five assembled employees on March 19 and by
Slack's implied threat separately to Gerstenberg on March
20, Respondent further violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
Considering the fact that, as found above, other forms
of solicitation were being allowed both during working
and nonworking time, as of the time of Slack's meeting
with the five employees in the plant, and the further fact
that the burden of Slack's remarks to the five employees
at the meeting was that Respondent would not tolerate the
solicitation of union membership on the plant premises on
working or nonworking time by the distribution of union
authorization cards, I conclude, and find, further that
Respondent thereby enforced its no-solicitation rule not
only coercively but disparately in order to prevent its
employees from engaging in solicitation in behalf of the
Union."
Although Respondent has admitted in its answer that
John Slack, Jr., is a supervisor within the meaning of
Section 2(11) of the Act, it takes the position, in effect,
therein that it should not be held responsible for any
conduct or statements by Slack, which may be found to
have contravened the Act, because Slack engaged in such
conduct without its authority. However, because
Respondent has clothed Slack with the mantle of its
authority, any conduct or statements by him to
Respondent's employees contravening the Act would
naturally have a coercive effect upon them, regardless of
the fact that such conduct or statements. are unauthorized., s
;Accordingly, I find that Respondent is answerable for
the aforesaid threats and acts of interrogation by Slack
found herein.
In sum , therefore, I conclude, and find, that
Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act (1) by
reliable witness.
"Slack 's testimony was only that he could not recall any of the above
occasions testified to by Gerstenberg.
"On the matter of enforcement of the rule , see The Great Atlantic &
Pacific Tea Company , Inc. 162 NLRB 1182, 1184 , holding that : It is well
established that the mere existence of an unlawful no-solicitation rule
makes it susceptible to application to employees and this factor alone tends
to coerce , restrain , and interfere with their right to engage in
self-organizational activities.
"See N.L.R.B. v Ace Comb Company , 342 F .2d 841 (C.A 8).
M. C. RICCIARDI COMPANY
promulgating , and maintaining in effect , an illegally broad
no-solicitation rule which prohibited union solicitiation on
nonworking time on plant premises; (2) by enforcing this
illegally broad no-solicitation rule discriminatorily in
order to prevent its employees from engaging in
solicitation on plant premises in behalf of the Union; and
(3) by threatening employees both directly and indirectly
with discharge for engaging in the distribution of union
authorization cards on plant premises.
B. Additional 8(a)(I )
According to Rosemary Lockhart, "a couple of hours
after work had started" on March 19, Slack approached
her, while she was at the water fountain in the plant,"
holding a union card in his hand, and asked her whether
she had gone to the union meeting ; and when she replied
in the negative, he inquired further whether she was sure.
She testified, in addition, that Slack also said, "whoever
passed union cards around will be fired"; and that he
asked her whether she knew who was passing out union
cards. As to the above, Slack admitted talking to
Lockhart at the fountain on one occasion about a
meeting, and saying, "what are you doing having a
meeting down there?" Slack testified, on direct, in
explanation of his admitted remark that the word
"meeting" was "just a figure of speech. It was just
something I said because they were all in one spot
talking." Thereafter, on cross examination, Slack gave as
an explanation that he was referring to "people just
milling around in that general area ," - the area where
Lockhart worked. In view of (1) my finding heretofore
discrediting Slack's testimony that such milling around
did occur; (2) the unconvincing explanation by Slack as to
why he used the word "meeting ," and his failure to
explain why he said to Lockhart what are you doing
having a meeting down there (emphasis supplied), when
Lockhart was at his side; (3) Slack's failure specifically to
deny both the interrogation concerning who was passing
out union cards and the threat attributed to him by
Lockhart; and (4) my findings heretofore discrediting
Slack and crediting Lockhart, I credit Lockhart here and
conclude, and find, that Slack interrogated Lockhart as to
the union meeting and as to who was passing out union
cards and, as was the case during the meeting that day
with the five employees, threatened to discharge any
employee who passed out union cards on company
premises, all of which interfered with, restrained and
coerced her in her rights under Section 7 of the Act, in
violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
Upon the basis of the entire record, I make the
following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. The Union is a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By interfering with , restraining , and coercing its
employees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed in
Section 7 of the Act in the manner found above,
Respondent engaged in unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
"She testified that she had just taken a break and had been to the
bathroom.
199
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
THE REMEDY
As I have found that Respondent engaged in certain
unfair labor practices, I shall order Respondent to cease
and desist therefrom and to take certain affirmative action
designed to effectuate the purposes of the Act. In this
connection, although Respondent did, shortly after the
filing of the instant complaint, in effect, rescind the
unlawful no-solicitation rule found herein, I shall
nevertheless, in order to safeguard against any further
promulgating, maintaining or enforcing by it of such a
rule and thereby interfering with its employees'
self-organizational rights under the Act, recommend that
Respondent be ordered to cease and desist therefrom.
Furthermore, since the record shows that the above rule
was promulgated and maintained by Respondent not only
in its Alpha plant in Alpha, New Jersey, but also in its
Tung-Sol plant and Kings plant in Washington, New
Jersey, I shall also recommend that Respondent be
ordered to post the notice hereinafter set forth both in the
Alpha, New Jersey, plant and in these two Washington,
New Jersey, plants.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and
conclusions of law, and upon the entire record in the case,
I recommend that:
A. Respondent, its officers, agents, successors, and
assigns , shall:
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Interrogating employees concerning their own or
their fellow employees' union membership, activities, or
desires in a manner constituting interference, restraint, or
coercion, in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
(b) Threatening employees directly or indirectly with
discharge if they engaged in the distribution of union
authorization cards on plant premises in a manner
consistent with their organizational rights under the Act.
(c) Promulgating, maintaining or enforcing a rule which
prohibits solicitation on company premises during
nonworking time unless authorized by management.
(d) Enforcing any no-solicitation rule in a manner
which discriminates against solicitation in a Union's
behalf.
(e) In any like or related manner interfering with,
restraining , or coercing its employees in the exercise of
their rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action designed to
effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Post at its plants in Alpha, New Jersey, and
Washington, New Jersey, copies of the attached notice,
marked "Appendix."" Copies of said notice, on forms
provided by the Regional Director for Region 22, shall,
after being signed by a representative of Respondent, be
posted by Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof,
and be maintained for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in
conspicuous places , including all places where notices to
employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall
be taken by Respondent to insure that said notices are not
altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
"in the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board,
the words "a Decision and Order" shall be substituted for the words "the
200 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(b) Notify the said Regional Director, in writing, within
20 days from the receipt of this Decision, what steps
Respondent has taken to comply herewith.18
Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner" in the notice In the further
event that the Board ' s Order is enforced by a decree of a United States
Court of Appeals, the words "Pursuant to a Decree of the United States
Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order," shall be substituted for the words
"a Decision and Order "
"In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board,
this provision shall be modified to read "Notify said Regional Director, in
writing , within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps Respondent
has taken to comply herewith "
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial
Examiner of the National Labor Relations Board and in
order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify our
employees that-
After a trial at which all sides had the chance to give
evidence, the National Labor Relations Board found that
we, M.C. Ricciardi Company, violated the National
Labor Relations Act, and ordered us to post this notice
and to carry out its provisions.
The Law gives you the right.
To form, join or help unions,
To choose a union to represent you in bargaining
with us,
To act together for your common interest or
protection; and
To refuse to participate in any or all of these
things.
The Board has ordered us to promise you that.
WE WILL NOT interfere with your rights.
WE WILL NOT interrogate you as to your or your
fellow employees ', union activities , union membership,
or desires.
WE WILL NOT threaten you directly or indirectly with
discharge if you engage in the distribution of union
authorization cards on plant premises in a manner
consistent with your organizational rights under the
Act.
WE WILL NOT promulgate , maintain, or enforce a
rule which prohibits solicitation on company premises
during nonworking time unless authorized by us.
WE WILL NOT enforce any no-solicitation rule in a
manner which discriminates against solicitation in a
union ' s behalf.
Dated By
M.C. RICCIARDI
COMPANY
(EMPLOYER)
(Representative ) (Title)
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.
If employees have any question concerning this notice
or compliance with its provisions, they may communicate
directly with the Board's Regional Office, Federal
Building, 970 Broad Street, Newark, New Jersey 07102,
Telephone 645-2100.