Massey-Ferguson, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 14, 1979

246 N.L.R.B. 1100 (N.L.R.B. 1979)

DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Massey-Ferguson, Inc. and Ronald Kuzera and Inter-
national Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and
Agricultural Implement Workers of America
(UAW), Party to the Contract. Case 7-CA-16517
December 14, 1979
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS JENKINS, MURPHY, AND TRUESDALE
Upon a charge filed on June 26, 1979, by Ronald
Kuzera, herein called the Charging Party, and duly
served on Massey-Ferguson, Inc., herein called Re-
spondent, the General Counsel of the National Labor
Relations Board, by the Regional Director for Region
7, issued a complaint on August 8, 1979, against Re-
spondent alleging that Respondent had engaged in
unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the
meaning of Section 8(a)(1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of
the National Labor Relations Act, as amended. Cop-
ies of the charge, complaint, and notice of hearing
before an administrative law judge were duly served
on the parties to this proceeding.
With respect to the unfair labor practices, the com-
plaint alleges in substance that since January 24,
1977, and continuing to date, Respondent has inter-
fered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in
the exercise of the rights guaranteed them by Section
7 of the Act by maintaining, as part of its current 3-
year collective-bargaining agreement with the Inter-
national Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and
Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW),
herein called the Union, at its West Chicago plant
and other facilities, a clause prohibiting employees
from distributing literature at any time on company
property.
On August 15, 1979, Respondent filed an answer to
the complaint, admitting in part and denying in part
the allegations of the complaint and submitting cer-
tain affirmative defenses.
Thereafter, on September 4, 1979, counsel for the
General Counsel filed directly with the Board a Mo-
tion for Summary Judgment. Subsequently, on Sep-
tember 17, 1979, the Board issued an order transfer-
ring the proceeding to the Board and a Notice To
Show Cause why the General Counsel's Motion for
Summary Judgment should not be granted. Respon-
dent filed a reply to the Notice To Show Cause urging
the Board, in effect, to deny the motion and to dis-
miss the complaint.
Upon the entire record in this proceeding, the
Board makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FA("I'
I. FILe BUSINESS OF RSPONI)ENT
Respondent is, and has been at all times material
herein, a corporation duly organized under, and exist-
ing by virtue of, the laws of the State of Maryland. At
all times material herein, Respondent has maintained
an office and place of business at 13881 West Chicago
in the City of Detroit and State of Michigan, herein
called the West Chicago plant. Respondent maintains
other plants in the States of Michigan, Iowa, and
Ohio, among others. Respondent is, and has been at
all times material herein, engaged in the manufacture,
sale, and distribution of farm equipment and related
products. During the fiscal year ending October 31,
1978, which period is representative of its operations
during all times material hereto, Respondent, in the
course and conduct of its business operations, pur-
chased and caused to be transported and delivered to
its plant at West Chicago, Detroit, Michigan, goods
and materials valued in excess of $50,000, of which
goods and materials valued in excess of $50,000 were
transported and delivered to its plant at West Chi-
cago, Detroit, Michigan, directly from points located
outside the State of Michigan. We find, as Respon-
dent has admitted, that it is, and has been at all times
material herein, an employer engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the
Act.
11. IHE LABOR ORGANIZAIION INVOLV()IED
We find that the Union is and has been at all times
material herein a labor organization within the mean-
ing of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. RULING ON THE MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUI>()MENT AND THE REQUEST FOR D)ISMISSAL
A. Facits
In its answer to the complaint, Respondent admits
the factual allegations of the complaint, but denies
that it has committed any unfair labor practices. The
undisputed facts are that since January 24, 1977, and
continuing to date, Respondent has maintained a 3-
year collective-bargaining agreement with the Union
at its West Chicago plant and at other facilities, con-
taining the following provision:
Article XVII: Bulletin Boards
17.01 The company shall provide a suitable
number of bulletin boards for the exclusive use
246 NLRB No. 174
I 100
MASSEY-FRGUSON. INC.
of the Union at each appropriate unit. The use of
the bulletin boards shall be confined to the fol-
lowing notices:
I. recreational and social affairs of the
union;
2. union meetings;
3. union appointments;
4. union elections, including those required
in the union constitution, and the results of
such elections.
There shall be no distribution or posting by
employees of pamphlets, advertising or political
matter, notices, or any other kind of literature
upon company property, other than as herein
provided. Notice shall be posted by a committee-
man only after approval of the Local Personnel
and Industrial Relations Department.
B. The Parties' Contentions
The General Counsel contends that Respondent
violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by maintaining in
its collective-bargaining agreement with the Union a
rule prohibiting employees for distributing literature
at any time on company property, and that a union's
consent to an unlawful rule, even when contained in
collective-bargaining agreement. affords no defense to
the illegality of the rule.' Respondent, in its answer to
the complaint, contends that the alleged unlawful
provision is not a rule, but rather a clause in the col-
lective-bargaining agreement which cannot be unilat-
erally expunged by one party to that agreement, and
that if it were unilaterally to expunge the clause from
the agreement it "would, in fact, be bargaining in bad
faith." In its reply to the Notice To Show Cause, Re-
spondent further submits for Board consideration "a
copy of the new section of the Labor Agreement."
signed by Respondent and the Union. Respondent
asserts that the signators. as well as the Charging
Party, 2 "feel" that this alleged revision of article XVII
"meets the regulations of the Board" and that there
are, therefore. "no further reasons to proceed in this
matter." The revision of article XVII is prefaced with
the following unexplained statement: "The settlement
of this issue is conditional upon the settlement of all
other outstanding issues in these negotiations." Arti-
cle XVII as allegedly revised, is identical to the old
provision, except that for the words "upon company
ICiting L. RB v. Alagnaior Cornpan( of Tennessee, 414 S I 109
(1974): Ford MAoror Comrpan f(Rouge (Comp/eJ 233 NlRB 698 (1977).
Eastex Incorporated, 215 NRB 271 (1974): Mascw -Fetrguon, Inc., 211
NLRB 487 (1974)
Respondent's replb letter was signed bh Respondent's general personnel
and industrial relations manager tractors dlsision, Jack Derrs: Interna-
tional representatlie, AW. Steve Borosich. chairman master hbargaining
committee: and the (harging Parts
property, other than as herein provided," the parties
have substituted, "on working time or in working
areas.
C. A nah.vsi.s and Conclusiols
On the basis of the foregoing facts and having fully
considered the parties' contentions, we shall grant the
General Counsel's Motion for Summary Judgment.
Article XVII of Respondent's collective-bargaining
agreement with the Union. in effect since January 24.
1977, is clearly unlawful in that it prohibits employ-
ees from distributing literature at any time on com-
pany property.3 The fact that the unlawful rule is con-
tained in a collective-bargaining agreement affords no
defense to its illegality.4 Further, given the condi-
tional language prefacing the alleged revision of arti-
cle XVII of the collective-bargaining agreement be-
tween Respondent and the Union, we find that
Respondent has failed to establish that such revision
has become a part of the parties' collective-hargain-
ing agreement and that the unlawful provision no
longer remains in effect.'
The Board, upon the basis of the foregoing facts
and the entire record, makes the following:
CO)N('I. tSI()NS OF LAW
I. Massey-Ferguson. Inc.. is an employer engaged
in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and
(7) of the Act.
2. International Union, United Automobile, Aero-
space and Agricultural Implement Workers of Amer-
ica (UAW), is a labor organization within the mean-
ing of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By maintaining a rule which prohibits employ-
ees from distributing literature at any time on com-
pany property, Respondent had violated Section
8(a)( I) of the Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practice is an unfair
labor practice affecting commerce within the meaning
of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Rela-
tions Board hereby orders that the Respondent. Mas-
sey-Ferguson, Inc.. Detroit, Michigan. its officers.
agents, successors, and assigns. shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
3task m Fa'rur son , /o, 'lqurrl
' 1. R B s -ft1agnao1 (',,', tl~ if 7 ,'nnet',','. upra tlr d t 1olr ('o m-
pals!, upra. a.'lo It?' tt' Jrprli 'd ipral
'We find unnecesssrs. heretre to pass upon the legalis i art XVII
a, allegedlv revised.
1101
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(a) Maintaining any rule which prohibits employ-
ees from distributing literature at any time on com-
pany property.
(b) In any like or related manner interfering with.
restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of
the rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the
Board finds will effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Post at its office and place of business at 13881
West Chicago, Detroit, Michigan, and at other facili-
ties and places of business where the rule unlawfully
restricting distribution is maintained copies of the at-
tached notice marked "Appendix." 6 Copies of said
notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director
for Region 7, after being duly signed by an authorized
representative of Respondent, shall be posted by Re-
spondent immediately upon receipt thereof and be
maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in
conspicuous places, including all places where notices
I In the event that this Order is enforced by a Judgment of the United
States Court of Appeals. the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order of
the National abor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant to a Judg-
ment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board."
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.
(b) Notify the Regional Director for Region 7, in
writing, within 20 days from the date this Decision.
what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
APPENDIX
NOTICE, To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THEill
NA IIONA LABOR RF LAI'IONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WI W\vIl.. NOT maintain any rule which prohib-
its our employees from distributing literature at
any time on company property.
WiE WILL NOT in any like or related matter
interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees
in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them in
Section 7 of the Act.
MASSEY-FERGUSON, IN(.
102