Manchester Plastics

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 31, 1996

320 N.L.R.B. 797 (N.L.R.B. 1996)

797
320 NLRB No. 62
MANCHESTER PLASTICS
1 The Respondent has excepted to the judge’s failure to include a
nonadmissions clause in the recommended Order and notice. We
find no merit in the Respondent’s exceptions. First, although the Re-
spondent’s motion that the judge issue findings of fact, conclusions
of law, and an appropriate Order and notice based on the complaint
allegations was premised ‘‘on the basis that it does not constitute
technically an admission,’’ the Respondent failed to request specifi-
cally that nonadmissions language be included in the Order and no-
tice, and did not condition its motion on such inclusion. Second, the
Board has found the inclusion of nonadmissions language in Board
notices to be inappropriate. Pottsville Bleaching Dyeing Co., 301
NLRB 1095, 1095–1096 (1991) (‘‘[W]e will not permit the inclusion
of a nonadmissions clause in a Board notice under any cir-
cumstances.’’). Accordingly, we deny the Respondent’s exceptions.
We shall modify the judge’s recommended Order and shall sub-
stitute a new notice to include the standard narrow cease-and-desist
language inadvertently omitted by the judge.
Manchester Plastics, Division of Larizza Industries,
Inc. and International Union, United Auto-
mobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement
Workers of America (UAW), AFL–CIO. Cases
7–CA–36395 and 7–CA–36492
January 31, 1996
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN GOULD AND MEMBERS BROWNING
AND COHEN
On October 6, 1995, Administrative Law Judge
Irwin H. Socoloff issued the attached decision. The
Respondent filed exceptions and a supporting brief,
and the General Counsel filed an answering brief.
The National Labor Relations Board has considered
the decision and the record in light of the exceptions
and briefs and has decided to affirm the judge’s rul-
ings, findings, and conclusions and to adopt the rec-
ommended Order as modified.1
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board adopts the rec-
ommended Order of the administrative law judge as
modified below and orders that the Respondent, Man-
chester Plastics, Division of Larizza Industries, Inc.,
Mancaster, Michigan, its officers, agents, successors,
and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Order
as modified.
1. Insert the following as paragraph 1(k).
‘‘(k) In any like or related manner interfering with,
restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of
the rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act.’’
2. Substitute the attached notice for that of the ad-
ministrative law judge.
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
The National Labor Relations Board has found that we
violated the National Labor Relations Act and has or-
dered us to post and abide by this notice.
Section 7 of the Act gives employees these rights.
To organize
To form, join, or assist any union
To bargain collectively through representatives
of their own choice
To act together for other mutual aid or protec-
tion
To choose not to engage in any of these pro-
tected concerted activities.
WE WILL NOT issue disciplinary notices to employ-
ees in retaliation for their union activities.
WE WILL NOT coercively interrogate employees re-
garding their union activities and sympathies.
WE WILL NOT threaten employees that their union
activities will cause job loss, and that we will close the
Manchester plant if the employees select International
Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural
Implement Workers of America (UAW), AFL–CIO to
represent them or if they go on strike.
WE WILL NOT threaten to close the Homer plant if
the employees working there support the UAW drive
at Manchester.
WE WILL NOT create the impression among our em-
ployees that their union activities are under surveil-
lance.
WE WILL NOT supply employees with anti-UAW fly-
ers to distribute.
WE WILL NOT instruct employees not to participate
in the UAW’s campaign, and encourage them to re-
move literature which they have posted in support of
the Union.
WE WILL NOT condone threats of physical violence
against employees because of their union activities.
WE WILL NOT inform employees that it would be fu-
tile for them to select the UAW as their representative
because we will not bargain with that Union or prom-
ise employees that we will reopen negotiations with
the Manchester Plastics Independent Union if they
abandon their support for the UAW.
WE WILL NOT orally or in writing promulgate and
disparately enforce overly broad no-solicitation rules or
no-access rules.
798 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere
with, restrain, or coerce you in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed you by Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL rescind the unlawful no-solicitation and
no-access rules promulgated in September and October
1994.
WE WILL rescind and expunge from our files any
reference to the disciplinary notices issued to Peggy
Cook and Elizabeth Clouse in September and October
1994, respectively, and notify the affected employees,
in writing, that this has been done.
MANCHESTER PLASTICS, DIVISION OF
LARIZZA INDUSTRIES, INC.
Mark D. Rubin, Esq., for the General Counsel.
A. David Mikesell, Esq., of Detroit, Michigan, for the Re-
spondent.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
IRWIN H. SOCOLOFF, Administrative Law Judge. Upon
charges filed on September 22 and October 19, 1994, as
thereafter amended, by International Union, United Auto-
mobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of
America (UAW), AFL–CIO (the Union) against Manchester
Plastics, Division of Larizza Industries, Inc. (the Respond-
ent), the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations
Board, by the Regional Director for Region 7, issued a con-
solidated complaint dated December 19, 1994, alleging viola-
tions by Respondent of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) and Section
2(6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act (the Act).
Respondent, by its answer, denied the commission of any un-
fair labor practices.
Pursuant to notice, trial was held before me in Manchester,
Michigan, on June 28, 1995, at which the General Counsel
and the Respondent were represented by counsel and all par-
ties appeared and were afforded full opportunity to be heard.
At the outset of the trial, and for reasons more fully set forth
below, Respondent moved that I recess the hearing and issue
findings of fact, conclusions of law, and an appropriate
order, in accordance with the complaint allegations, provided
that the effective date for any required notice posting be de-
ferred. Both the General Counsel and the Charging Party re-
served the right to file a brief in opposition to delayed post-
ing, but neither did so, effectively waiving objection to the
granting of Respondent’s motion.
On the entire record in these cases, I make the following
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. JURISDICTION
Respondent, a corporation with offices and places of busi-
ness located in Manchester and Homer, Michigan, is engaged
in the manufacture and nonretail sale of automotive parts.
During the year ending December 31, 1993, a representative
period, Respondent, in the course and conduct of its business
operations, purchased and received at its Michigan facilities
goods valued in excess of $50,000, which were sent directly
from points located outside the State of Michigan. I find that
Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
II. LABOR ORGANIZATION
The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of
Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
The undisputed testimony of Barbara McConnell, Re-
spondent’s director of labor relations, establishes that, on the
day of trial, the Company was within 9 days of a virtual
shutdown of the Manchester plant production facilities in
order to retool for a new program. Thus, the Company in-
tended, on Friday, July 7, 1995, to lay off 120 of its 170
Manchester employees, for a period of 1 year, with recall ex-
pected on or about July 1, 1996. It is the Manchester facility
that is the subject of this case.
In these circumstances, and in view of its expressed desire
not to contest the complaint allegations, the logic of Re-
spondent’s unopposed position is compelling, and a delayed
remedial posting is entirely appropriate. Accordingly, I find,
in harmony with the motion, that Respondent engaged in the
unfair labor practice conduct alleged in the complaint, in vio-
lation of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act, and I conclude
that notice posting should be delayed so as to commence
when the Manchester plant is, again, in full or substantially
full operation on or about July 1, 1996.
IV. THE EFFECTS OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
ON COMMERCE
The activities of Respondent set forth in section III, above,
occurring in connection with its operations described in sec-
tion I, above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relation-
ship 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
Having found that Respondent has engaged in certain un-
fair labor practice conduct in violation of Section 8(a)(3) and
(1) of the Act, I shall recommend that it be ordered to cease
and desist therefrom and to take certain affirmative action
designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Manchester Plastics, Division of Larizza Industries, Inc.
is an employer engaged in commerce, and in operations af-
fecting commerce, within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6),
and (7) of the Act.
2. International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and
Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW), AFL–
CIO is a labor organization within the meaning of Section
2(5) of the Act.
3. By issuing disciplinary notices to employees Peggy
Cook and Elizabeth Clouse in retaliation for their union ac-
tivities, Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practice con-
duct within the meaning of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act.
4. By coercively interrogating employees regarding their
union activities and sympathies, Respondent has engaged in
799MANCHESTER PLASTICS
1 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the
Board’s Rules and Regulations, the findings, conclusions, and rec-
ommended Order shall, as provided in Sec. 102.48 of the Rules, be
adopted by the Board and all objections to them shall be deemed
waived for all purposes.
2 If this Order is enforced by a judgment of a United States court
of appeals, the words in the notice reading ‘‘Posted by Order of the
National Labor Relations Board’’ shall read ‘‘Posted Pursuant to a
Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order
of the National Labor Relations Board.’’
unfair labor practice conduct within the meaning of Section
8(a)(1) of the Act.
5. By threatening employees that their union activities
would cause a loss of jobs, and that Respondent would close
the Manchester plant if the employees selected the UAW to
represent them or if they went on strike, Respondent has en-
gaged in unfair labor practice conduct within the meaning of
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
6. By threatening to close the Homer plant if the employ-
ees working there supported the UAW drive at Manchester,
Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practice conduct
within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
7. By creating the impression among its employees that
their union activities were under surveillance, Respondent
has engaged in unfair labor practice conduct within the
meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
8. By supplying employees with anti-UAW flyers to dis-
tribute, Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practice con-
duct within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
9. By instructing employees not to participate in the
UAW’s campaign, and by encouraging employees to remove
literature which they had posted in support of the Union, Re-
spondent has engaged in unfair labor practice conduct within
the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
10. By condoning threats of physical violence against em-
ployees because of their union activities, Respondent has en-
gaged in unfair labor practice conduct within the meaning of
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
11. By informing employees that it would be futile for
them to select the UAW as their representative because Re-
spondent would not bargain with it, and by promising em-
ployees that it would reopen negotiations with the incumbent
collective-bargaining representative, the Manchester Plastics
Independent Union, if the employees would abandon their
support for the UAW, Respondent has engaged in unfair
labor practice conduct within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1)
of the Act.
12. By orally and in writing promulgating and disparately
enforcing overly broad no-solicitation rules, and by orally
promulgating and disparately enforcing a policy of no-access
to the Manchester facility by employees during their non-
work hours, Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practice
conduct within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
13. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on
the entire record, I issue the following recommended1
ORDER
The Respondent, Manchester Plastics, Division of Larizza
Industries, Inc., Manchester, Michigan, its officers, agents,
successors, and assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Issuing disciplinary notices to employees in retaliation
for their union activities.
(b) Coercively interrogating employees regarding their
union activities and sympathies.
(c) Threatening employees that their union activities will
cause a loss of jobs, and that Respondent will close the Man-
chester plant if the employees select the UAW to represent
them or if they go on strike.
(d) Threatening to close the Homer plant if the employees
working there support the UAW drive at Manchester.
(e) Creating the impression among its employees that their
union activities are under surveillance.
(f) Supplying employees with anti-UAW flyers to distrib-
ute.
(g) Instructing employees not to participate in the UAW’s
campaign, and encouraging them to remove literature which
they posted in support of the Union.
(h) Condoning threats of physical violence against employ-
ees because of their union activities.
(i) Informing employees that it would be futile for them
to select the UAW as their representative because Respond-
ent will not bargain with it, and promising employees that
it will reopen negotiations with the Manchester Plastics Inde-
pendent Union if the employees abandon their support for the
UAW.
(j) Orally and, in writing, promulgating and disparately en-
forcing overly broad no-solicitation rules, and orally promul-
gating and disparately enforcing a policy of no-access to the
Manchester facility by employees during their nonwork
hours.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to ef-
fectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Rescind the unlawful no-solicitation and no-access
rules promulgated in September and October 1994.
(b) Rescind and expunge from its files any reference to the
disciplinary notices issued to Peggy Cook and Elizabeth
Clouse in September and October 1994, respectively, and no-
tify the affected employees, in writing, that this has been
done.
(c) Post at its Manchester, Michigan facility, beginning on
the date the plant resumes full or substantially full oper-
ations, copies of the attached notice marked ‘‘Appendix.’’2
Copies of the notice, on forms provided by the Regional Di-
rector for Region 7, after being duly signed by the Respond-
ent’s representative, shall be posted by it and thereafter
maintained for 60 consecutive days, in conspicuous places,
including all places where notices to employees are cus-
tomarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Re-
spondent to ensure that the notices are not altered, defaced,
or covered by any other material.
(d) Notify the Regional Director in writing within 20 days
from the date of this Order what steps the Respondent has
taken to comply.