Nichi Bei Times Co.Download PDFNational Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsOct 28, 1975221 N.L.R.B. 149 (N.L.R.B. 1975) Copy Citation NICHI BEI TIMES COMPANY 149 Nichi Bei Times Company and Nichi Bei Times Workers' Association . Case 20-CA-9766 October 28, -1975 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN MURPHY -AND MEMBERS FANNING AND JENKINS to the Association, unilaterally reducing the working hours of unit employees and withdrawing recognition of the Association as the exclusive bargaining representative of its employees in an appropriate unit; and whether Respon- dent maintained an unlawful no-solicitation rule in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. Upon the entire record,' including my observation of the witnesses and after due consideration of the brief filed by the parties, I make the following: On June 30, 1975, Administrative Law Judge Earldean V. S. Robbins issued the attached Decision in this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed exceptions combined with a supporting brief. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated its authority in this'proceeding to a three-member panel. The Board has considered the record and the attached Decision in light of the exceptions and brief and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings, and conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge and to adopt her recommended Order. ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board adopts as its Order the recommend- ed Order of the Administrative Law Judge and hereby orders that the Respondent, Nichi Bei Times Company, San Francisco, California, its officers, agents, successors, and' assigns, shall take the action set forth in the said recommended Order. DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE EARLDEAN V.S. ROBBINS, Administrative Law Judge: This case was heard before me in San Francisco, California, on various days in April 1975. The charge was filed by the Nichi Bei Times Workers' Association, herein called the Association, and served on Respondent on November 29, 1974. The complaint which issued on February 10, 1975, alleges that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the National Labor Relations Act: Posttrial briefs were filed by the General Counsel and by the Respondent. The basic issues herein are whether the Association is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act; whether Respondent had an obligation to bargain collectively with the Association as the majority represent- ative of its employees in an appropriate bargaining unit; if so, whether Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) of the Act by refusing to furnish wage information on unit employees 1 Certain errors in the transcript are hereby noted and corrected 2 All dates hereinafter will be 1974 unless otherwise indicated. 3 It was not distributed to the mailroom employees, Mrchi Onuma and Charles Tanamachl. FINDINGS OF FACT I. JURISDICTION Respondent, a California corporation with its- principal office and place of business in San Francisco, is engaged in the business of commercial printing and of publishing a newspaper, "The Nichi Bei Times." During the past fiscal year, in the course and conduct of said business operations, Respondent has received -- gross revenues in excess of $200,000 and has subscribed to United Press International, an international and interstate news service. The complaint alleges, Respondent admits, and I . find that , Respondent is, and at all times material herein has been, an employer engaged in commerce and in operations affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act. H. THE FORMATION OF THE ASSOCIATION AND ITS STATUS AS A LABOR ORGANIZATION On July 11, 1974,2 a group of about, 18 of Respondent's employees met and decided to form an Association for the purpose of obtaining better wages and working conditions. Thereafter a survey was distributed among employees 3 to determine what demands to present to Respondent. At a July 18 meeting the results of the.-survey 4 were tabulated and it was agreed to demand a $1-an-hour raise. Between July 19 and 22, Akio Aoyagi, Rui. Takashima, and Iwao Kawakami were elected to the negotiating committee and it was decided to present -a written demand to Respondent covering wages, vacation,, pension, and health insurance. Several employees drafted-a demand letter which was later approved by the entire group. On or about August 13, at another meeting, certain-rules for the Association were adopted, including the handling of dues and the scheduling of semimonthly, meetings. Glenn Omi was elected treasurer and it was decided that no other officers were necessary at that time. It was further decided that collection of dues would commence for the month of August.5 Around July, 24 or within a week thereafter, membership cards were issued. Section 2(5) of the Act defines `a labor organization as any organization of any kind; or any agency or- employee representation committee or plan, in -which employees participate and which exists for the purpose, in whole-or in part, of dealing with employers concerning grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, 4 About 13 of the surveys were returned - 5 This is from the testimony , of Aoyagi. Glenn Onu thinks this meeting was held July 24. The facts herein are mostly, undisputed, and unless otherwise indicated are from the testimony of Akio Aoyagi. ' 221 NLRB No. 33 150 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD or conditions of work. Clearly the Association meets these requirements . N.E.R.B. v. Cabot Carbon Co., 360 U.S. 203 (1959). Accordingly, I find that the Association is a labor organization within themeaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Sequence of Events 1. The July 23 meeting Two or three days prior to July 23, Kawakami and Aoyagi approached Respondent's president, Schichinosuke Asano, told him they were representing the employees and would like to have a meetings Asano agreed and the meeting was held on July 23 during the lunch hour. Asano, Secretary and, General Manager Tsutomu Umezu, board of directors member Iwao Namekawa,7 and about 20 employ- ees s attended the meeting. Asano began the meeting by reviewing the history of the Nichi, Bei Times and its role in The community. He emphasized that since Respondent was for the Japanese community's service it could not expect sufficient income to pay sufficient wages . Since he spoke in Japanese, Kawakami summarized his statements in English. Then Aoyagi, spoke. He,agreed that Respondent should serve the community but said the employees wanted better wages and also wanted a clear wage system. He suggested that certain improvements, in management practices and changes in editorial policy would increase circulation and income without a concomitant increase in cost. Umezu admitted that he had no aggressive policy to-improve the paper but said he' was willing to change. 2. The July 24 demand After the July 23 meeting was over, Aoyagi, Omi, Stan Kadani, and Yuichi Murai remained and had a brief conversation with, Namekawa. Namekawa suggested that he and Aoyagi- should have dinner and talk. When Namekawa left, the four- employees decided it would be a good idea to send a letter to Respondent. They drafted a letter, read, it, to various other employees, and then prepared about 20 copies in English and Japanese. r These copies - were distributed to most employees except the mailroom employees and Tanamachi and Onuma. On July 24 copies-were also given to Namekawa, Umezu, and board of directors member Kazuma D. Ikezoe. The letter read: We workers of Nichi Bei Times made proposals on Aug. 9th of last year and March 1st. of this year, for improvement of the company. We also used, every opportunity to make clear individually the need for improvements, and, each time the management agreed to 'take action. But during the past year, the actions that were promised 1) Better working conditions. 6 There is no evidence that the Association was mentioned at this time. 4 On October 2, Asano remained chairman of the board, Umezu became secretary , and Namekawa became a vice president. 2), Improvements in the print 'shop to make more money 3) Re-evaluation of newspaper content to improve the paper and thereby increase subscrip- tions. 4) Improvements in all aspects of advertising policy. 5) Better service to readers. - 6) To have a meeting- of all workers and management as a whole body in order to discuss and begin to concretely carry out the above plans. NONE of these Agreements have been fulfilled!!! With this as a background , we workers , dissatisfied with conditions and unsure of our future, formed the NICHI BEI TIMES WORKES [SiC] ASSOCIATION in order to unite together to work for a better future. At this time , the NBTWA has decided to negotiate with the management with Kawakami , Aoyagi, ` and Takashima as our representatives. The following are our demands: We low-wage earners , because of inflationary price, especially of food, have no, chance of even saving money or finding other sources of income . We can only hope for increases in our monthly incomes (calculated on an hour basis). Is it difficult for management to understand the difficulty [sic] we face due to our low incomes? Rather than showing a genuine concern for our situation management has only made token -efforts to raise our wages by increasing subscription rates and paying us out of stock dividends. If, this continues , we will never be able to gain anything . We have already waited for one whole year! ! ! This time, we must demand a clear reply in writing to each of the following-by the deadline on July 30: 1) A $1.00 raise for everybody, to begin Aug. 1 1974. 2) Vacation plan. 1-5 year worker - 1 week per year. 6-10 year worker - 2 weeks per year. 11 year worker - 3 weeks per year 3) Establish a pension plan, re-evaluate insur- ance plan. 4) A clear system for wage rate. 5) Managements opinions on ideas, presented during the past year, and explanation of why they weren't implemented. On July 24 Aoyagi and Kawakami delivered a copy of the above document to Asano. Aoyagi read the Japanese version of the letter to Asano, told him the employees were concerned regarding. Respondent's future and' would like to help to improve the Company so that they could obtain better wages and working conditions. He further said the employees thought that the best way of achieving these goals was to form an association, - that most of the employees wanted the Association and had joined it, and that he, Takashima, and Kawakami had been selected to represent the employees. Asano said he would think about 8 The mailroom employees were not present nor were editorial employees Charles Tanamachi and Michi Onuma. NICHI BEI TIMES -COMPANY the demands listed at the end of the letter, that he really appreciated the suggestions and would work hard to meet the suggestions. There was no explanation as to which employees or classification of employees he was referring. Aoyagi testified that when he referred to employees he had a certain unit of employees in his mind and Asano did not question as to whom he represented. 3. The July 27 Namekawa-Aoyagi, conversation On July 27, in Respondent's parking lot, Namekawa approached Aoyagi and asked if he was-a radical student sent from Japan to organize a labor union and disrupt Respondent. Aoyagi_ said he never got involved in any radical student movement. Namekawa said he had read the July 24 demand and considered outrageous the demand for a $1 wage increase. Aoyagi replied that was because Namekawa had no ideas for improvement , that an increase in income of $300 to $400 daily. would finance such an increase . Namekawa said he objected to the use'of the word "demand" in the July 24 letter and asked Aoyagi to change it. Aoyagi agreed. Namekawa further said that posting the July 24 letter was illegal.9 Aoyagi said he did not know of any such'law. Namekawa said the employees who were not members of the Association felt pressured and uncomfortable. Aoyagi said he did not realize this problem existed and was willing to discuss it if it did exist. Aoyagi also suggested that Respondent hold -a meeting of employees to explain the "inner workings " of the Company and reminded Namekawa that he had promised such a meeting several times in the past. 4. The meeting in the last week of July Between July 24 and 30, either Asano or'Umezu asked Aoyagi and Kawakami to the conference room to discuss ways to improve Respondent's operation. Umezu, Asano, Ikezoe, Vice President Yasuo Abiko, Treasurer Tsugio Kobayashi, and another person whom Aoyagi thinks is Director Noboru Shirai were present. The meeting lasted from 2-1/2 to 3-1/2 hours. Aoyagi repeated the suggestions contained in the July 24 letter °and made'some additional ones . He emphasized that the requested wage increase could : be made if - they worked together to improve Respondent's operations. Asano said a wage increase was probably possible, that 'subscription rates in Japan had doubled so Respondent was planning to raise its subscrip- tion rate. Aoyagi objected that this was just'a temporary solution and since Asano insisted that Respondent serve the'community,'just to raise'the advertising and subscrip- tion rate was not reasonable. Aoyagi said the problem was poor management. Shirai said the employees were asking too much. They also discussed vacations and the other demands set forth in the July 24 letter. The management representatives said they would have to study the demands. Aoyagi said 'employees had become suspicious of each other over differences in wages, that they had to have a clear wage system. Umezu said Respondent could not give them a clear wage system. Asano said they were expecting 9 The letter had been posted on the stai rway, in the lunchroom, and opposite the timeclock 10 This is a composite of the testimony of Aoyagi and Umezu. 151 a professional printing engineer from Japan which should result in improvement, and that they would consult with another Japanese newspaper relative to increasing sub- scription rates. 5. The July 30 meeting On July 30, Asano and Aoyagi agreed to a meeting which was held July 31. At the July 31 meeting, they first agreed that the meeting would last only I hour. Nameka- wa, Umezu, Abiko, and about 12 employees were present. Namekawa stated that the other Japanese-American newspaper was facing the same problem as Respondent and that Respondent's employees were not the only ones suffering from low wages. Employees' Kadani, Kawakami, and Kimi Shinto said something in criticism of such rationalization. Aoyagi said they wanted Respondent to pay full premium for health and dental insurance'and they wanted a pension plan. Umezu said it was impossible to pay the full premium` and that there must be some law prohibiting a small company such as Respondent from providing a pension plan, that he would have to consult with a professional. Umezu also said he had an aggressive management policy and he was planning 'to improve the job' printing section. He suggested that the print shop employees should get together to discuss improvement of that operation. Someone from management said the requested vacation plan' was a good idea but made no definite commitment.'0 6. The August 2 demand Immediately following the July 30 meeting with Respon- dent, - Omi, Kadani, Murai, and Aoyagi drafted the following document protesting management 's attitude at the meeting, reasserting their earlier demands and had members of the Association sign it.ii We are not satisfied with the replies made by the management of the Nichi Bei Times at the meeting held on July 31st. 1. We continue to request for $1 an hour raise. Retroactive to July 29. 2. We are waiting for a reply on a vacationplan for workers. 3. The, reply made by Mr. Umezu on the pension and medical plans was not satisfactory and we expect a positive answer. 4. We want the management to give us a clear picture of the wage system,for all workers. 5. In spite of the high cost of living, the company did not recognize this situation and this is irresponsible of the company when it is brought to their attention by the workers. We would like to have the company reply to the above points by Friday noon, Aug. 9. If the company does not meet the above requests, we plan to take drastic steps. 11 As with most other documents involved herein , it was written in both English and Japanese . The version set forth herein is the English. The translation of the Japanese version is essentially the same. 152 /s/ Iwao Kawakami /s/ Akio Aoyagi. /s/ Haruml Matsushita /s/ Masaru Sano /s/ Glenn Omi /s/ Rui Takashima /s/ Kimi Shinto DECISIONS OF NATIONAL,LABOR RELATIONS BOARD /s/ T. Kokame /s/ K. Miura /s/ S. Ishida /s/ Stan Kadam /s/ Yuichi Murat /s/ Yuriko Amores On August 2 or 3, Kadam and Aoyagi presented the above document to Asano. Aoyagi asked Asano to read it, pointed out that it had been signed by, employees, and requested another meeting. Asano agreed to meet on August 9. 7. -The August 7 meeting On August 5, following altercations between Tanamachi and Kadani and Tanamachi and employee Shizue Ishida, the Association had an emergency meeting at which they agreed to present the following letter to Respondent: For the last 12 months, we employees of the NBT Company have been meeting and discussing ways to improve the NBT and thereby- increase our low wages. Throughout this period, we have received [sic] little cooperation from the NBT management,,and so in July of 1974,46 formed the NBT Workers' Association to improve our ability to discuss these issues with the company. With the formation of our Association, we presented five demands to the Company to improve our wages, the working conditions, and the benefits here. For the past year we have patiently presented petitions, proposals, and questions to the management. These have all been met with little if any response [sic] by, the Company. Our latest set of five demands, all completely reasonable, were rejected by the Company. This latest rejection was a disappointment and has drawn our patience thin. Even still, we are willing to further negotiate. But added to this situation now . is the abusive attitude taken by Tanamachi towards certain members of the NBTWA in particular, and towards the Associa- tion in general. In particular, we are referring to Saturday, August 3, 1974, when Tanamachi viciously verbally attacked one of our co-workers, Mrs. Shizue Ishida, for some five minutes straight, raising his voice and yelling, all this not to make a point, but to intimidate her. When other workers protested this outrage, they were told by Tanamachi to "shut up." Further, on Monday, August 5, 1974, Tana'machi continued this verbal abuse towards another of our co- workers, Mr. Stan Kadani. But in this instance, he went even beyond his previous bad conduct of yelling, and added physical assault. Even' more, ',Tanamachi threat- ened to "beat up" Kadani in the parking lot after work. These abuses and assaults are completely unjustifia- ble, and are a disgrace to the Nichi Bei Times. We, as members of the NBTWA and as long-time workers at this company, protest this gross treatment and file this complaint in writing. We demand an apology from Tanamachi for his verbal and,physical assaults on our two co-workers: Mrs. Ishida and Mr. Kadani. This is the only solution possible. We wish to point out that this [sic] situation is not just a dispute between three individuals, but that it brings into question the attitude of the entire manage- ment towards the workers. We urge Mr. Asano, President of NBT, to take personal initiative to resolve this situation. A newspaper has to stand for the principle ofjustice. But such a , principle is being disgraced within the company when workers [sic] are verbally and physical- ly abused. Unless we can recieve [sic ],support from the company against such injustice, we must appeal to the community as our only source of support. We expect definite and positive action from the NBT ^.vfLpoJly vu Luin m^uc. August 5,.1974 /s/ Yuichi Murai /s/ Masani Sano /s/ Kivu Shinto /s/ Akio Aoyagi /s/ Iwao Kawakami /s/ Glenn Omi /s/ Rui Takashima /s/ Stan Kadani /s/ Kimi Miura /s/ S. Ishida /s/ Harumi Matsushita /s/ Terukumi Kokame /s/ Yuriko N. Amores The above document was presented to Asano by Kadani and Aoyagi on August 5. Aoyagi read the Japanese version to him. Asano said he,thought the incidents were personal and Respondent should not be involved, but agreed to a meeting on August 7 to discuss the situation. On August 7, about 15 employees met with' Asano and Umezu. Asano said ' Tanamachi _ apologized for the inci- dents. Kadani and Aoyagi said they considered . the incident. as threatening toward the Association from a person close to management. Asano said he considered it as a personal matter. Aoyagi suggested that it was management's responsibility to, control, Respondent's operation. Aoyagi asked if Tanamachi had any, authority by virtue of his ownership of some of Respondent's stock. Asano said- stock ownership confers, no authority, that all employees are equal. Aoyagi asked if Umezu had started on pension and vacation plans, and how it was progressing. Umezu said 'he was still investigating, but promised to give a definite answer as to vacations by August 9. 8. The August 9 meeting Abiko, Umezu, and 10 to 20 employees 12 were present at the August 9 meeting. The occurrences at this meeting are disputed. Umezu testified that he prepared the following statement which he read in Japanese and Abiko and Kawakami summarized in English; he 'made no other comments nor does he recall any remarks made by employees. 12 Mural estimated 10 employees and Aoyagi estimated 17, to 20 employees. NICHI BEI TIMES COMPANY 153 ENGLISH AUG. 9 1974. not recall Umezu complaining about employees stopping at Asano's desk during the day to request meetings. Neither Aoyagi nor Murai recall anything being said about editorial policy, requesting negotiations in writing or during work hours without an appointment, or about meetings with small groups of employees.14 1. The 1-dollar increase of hourly wage going back to July 29th impossible. With Sept. 15th as the target, will make efforts to implement a wage increase by considering the business situation. The amount of increase in such a case undecided have already replied 2. Do not recognize its necessity. It is an infringement of the right of management. Also, cannot agree to the demand to reveal the salaries of those managing the business. 3. Have already replied regarding pension impossible for company to bear the total amount in medical insurance 4. A. Meddling in the editing is unacceptable no matter by whom. B. Consolidation of the printing department to be carried out speedily as much as possible. Will discuss concretely with punting department personnel. The company side cannot agree' to a unilateral convocation of a meeting by a segment of the employees. In the future, all employees will be notified in writing by the company side. It is strictly forbidden henceforth to request for negotiations with the company president during work hours without appointment. If necessary, a request should be made beforehand to the board.13 Neither Aoyagi nor Murai recalls Umezu reading any document. According to Murai, Umezu referred to notes when he mentioned figures and percentages. Aoyagi and Murai testified in substantial agreement that in the beginning Aoyagi suggested that management representa- tives would be responsible for interpreting into English or Japanese the remarks of management representatives, and the Association would be responsible for interpreting employee remarks. Umezu agreed. Umezu said manage- ment faced financial difficulty, that 70 or 75 percent of Respondent's income went to wages. He also said that the rising cost of paper was a factor. Umezw, said they would grant a wage increase around September 15. Aoyagi and Shinto inquired as to the amount of increase. Umezu said the amount of increase was confidential and dependent upon an individual's productivity, and they had no right to that information. Aoyagi suggested that even though the meeting was called by the Association the agenda was relevant to all employees, so all employees should attend the meeting . Umezu said that was a good,idea but pointed put that the differences, in working schedules made that difficult. Kadani asked why Respondent had not taken their suggestions for improving job printing. Umezu said he was willing to meet with the employes in the printing department to discuss ways of improving, the job printing operation. Umezu said the pension plan was under study and stressed that such a plan was difficult for a small company, that they would have to consult with an expert. Mural does 13 This translation is by the official translator for the proceedings herein. 14 This latter was in response to leading questions related to that portion of Umezu's prepared statement which translates , "The company side cannot agree to a unilateral convocation of a meeting by a segment of the employees." 9. The August 15 meeting On or about August 15,15 Umezu came into the lunchroom and announced to the six or seven employees present 16 that Respondent had decided to grant additional vacation benefits. The new vacation plan would be 1 week's vacation for employees with 1 to 5 years' seniority and 2 weeks after 6 years. Umezu asked if they accepted the plan. Some of the employees argued that employees with 10 years' seniority should receive more than 2 weeks, however, Aoyagi testified, "At the end of the discussion, we settle and we accept his plan." 10. The August 23 demand On August 23, the following document was submitted to Respondent. This is to notify the Nichi Bei Times management that the NBTWA has waited long enough. We reaffirm our demands for: 1. $1.00 per hour raise for all workers Retroactive to 7-29-74 2. a clear explanation of the wage rate for all NBT employees, including the management 3. a pension plan for the company, and medical insurance paid completely by the compa- ny 4. a clear explanation of management plans to improve the income of the Nichi Bei Times, specifically - A. improving the quality of the newspaper, especially the editorial policies B. improving the operations of the print shop, increas- ing efficiency and business If these demands are not fulfilled by August 28, 1974, we will have no other course but to seek support from outside the company. We will begin distributing the attached public statement of the NBTWA in that event. We request that the company call a meeting for August 28, 1974, 12:30 pm, attended by all employees of NBT, to discuss this current situation. 8-23-1974 Nichi Bei Tunes Workers' Association Attached thereto were leaflets soliciting public support. 15 Umezu had previously promised that he would show up on that date and relate Respondent 's decision on vacations. 16 There are normally 10 to 13 employees in the lunchroom at noon. Oms, Kadani , Aoyagi, Kawakami, Shinto, and Harumi Matsushita were present. 154 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 11. The August 28 change in lunch and coffeebreak policy On August 27, the Association met and formulated its position for the next meeting with Respondent. This included a compromise wage demand, earlier deadline, another meeting, space in the newspaper to publicize their position, and a demand for a change in the lunch and coffeebreak policy. On August 28, Umezu came into the lunchroom around noon. About seven employees were present. Umezu said Respondent had decided to give employees 50 minutes for lunch, and 20-minute morning and afternoon breaks.17 Shinto asked if all employees had to take lunch and breaks at the same time. Umezu said this was not necessary because work schedules were not uniform. 12. The September 17 announcement of no- solicitation rule and answer to the Association's demands On September 17 another meeting was held. Umezu, Namekawa, Ikezoe, and about 20 employees were present. At the outset Umezu accused the Association of working with a society known as New Dawn to distribute leaflets soliciting public support for the Association in envelopes stolen from Respondent. Kadani, who is a member of New Dawn, denied this.is Namekawa said some people were saying the Association was socialist. The employees protested this label. Umezu read and distributed the following rules and regulations: 1. No signs or posters may be posted on bulletin boards or any other parts of the premises of the Nichi Bei Times by any person or persons without written consent of the managing director. 2. No meetings of employees for purposes of organizing or forming or propagating the contentions of any employees' association will be permitted on the premises of the Nichi Bei Times, or during working hours. By law, the Nichi Bei Times is not required to pay any employee for time spent in any such meeting or meetings, and any absence from work by any employee or employees for such purpose will result in an appropriate reduction in wages and earnings. 3. No equipment or materials or facilities of the Nichi Bei Times, including, but not limited to, presses, cameras and type, is permitted, without prior written authorization from the managing director. 4. Any request of employees or any purported association of employees to meet for discussions of working conditions or other aspects of employment must be made, in writing, to the managing director. As to rule 1, the employees protested that their posters destroyed nothing so they didn't think such a rule was necessary. As to rule 3, Umezu said they were not to use Respondent's Japanese type. Aoyagi said he was sorry, he knew it was not right but the Association had decided that it would not damage anything to use Respondent's press. Umezu was speaking in Japanese. Aoyagi asked him to translate into English, but Umezu said that was unneces- sary and did not do so. Umezu then read and translated the following reply to the Association's demand. A Japanese version was distributed. 1. $1 Pay raise retroactive July 29th is impossible as replyed before. We will try to give you some pay raise effective Sept. 15, but its increase rate is not decided yet. 2. Management can not, clarify, wage rate of the employees and management staffs. We believe such action is not necessary. 3. We already made a reply on the proposed pention [sic] plan. 4. Editing: The right of selection or rejection of news items belongs exclusively to the person who is editing so that indiscrimination, interference, meddling or restraint are not permitted under any circumstance. An attempt to increase earnings is to be made through the consolidation of the printing department. Shinto asked when the raise would appear on their paychecks. Umezu said it would be after the next paycheck. One of the management representatives said it was past 1 p.m. and the meeting would have to end. Some of the employees, including Kadani, protested manage- ment's action in closing the meeting without any serious discussion of the Association's demand or Respondent's reply. 13. The change to 5-day publication Around the end of September, the employees learned that Respondent was planning to go from 6-day publica- tion to 5-day. On, or about October 1, Aoyagi and several other members of the Association approached Umezu, told him of their concern-regarding this change, that employees had not been notified, and asked if he would explain any changes in wages. Umezu's only reply was, "Oh yeah? You didn't know? You didn't know we planned to change to five-day system." He then said he would let them know regarding the effect on wages. On October 2, Kadani, Omi, Aoyagi, Murai, Kawakami, and Shinto talked to Asano. Aoyagi explained that they had gone to Umezu but received no answer and had decided to come to the president to get a clearer answer about the 5-day publication system and its effect on wages. Asano said they could have a meeting the next day. On October 3, Asano, Umezu, and Abiko met with about 10 to 14 employees in the lunchroom around noon. Asano said Ikezoe was Respondent's new president and gave the names of the other officers. Someone inquired if their 17 In view of this, the Association never made its proposal relative to punted by Respondent for a customer. The envelope did contain New breaks. 18 In an effort to prove this, Umezu unsealed an envelope in the meeting Dawn material but contained nothing from the Association NICHI BEI TIMES COMPANY ' wages would be changed with the 5-day system. Umezu said they would work from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. 5 days 19 with no wage change. Someone inquired as to the people who worked 8 hours. on Saturday and received 4 hours overtime. There was no answer. Omi said, "You cannot change our wages and working schedule without asking us, and an NLRB Act says, `without consulting employees company cannot make any unilateral changes in the wages and working schedule.' " Umezu and Ikezoe then had a short discussion which the employees could not near. Umezu said they would- get a pay raise. Aoyagi asked the amount of the increase. Umezu replied that he could not say how much because each person had different prod- uctivity. Aoyagi said it was all right to discriminate according to productivity when wages were $5 an hour' but at $2 and $2.50 an hour differences in wages based on productivity had no validity. - He said at least employees should receive the same wages. Umezu said it was a basic rule of Respondent not to disclose wages and productivity of each individual. Ikezoe testified that he was out of the office on October 3. When he returned he was told that several employees were looking for him. So he met with Aoyagi, Omi, Kadoni, and Murai. They asked what was going to be done about the pay when the 5-day week began and implied serious consequences if they received a pay cut. Ikezoe, said he would talk to Umezu. Toward the end of the first week in October, Omi, Murai, and Aoyagi approached Umezu and Ikezoe. Aoyagi said they had to have a clear answer as to the effect the 5- day system, would have on wages and requested that employees be given 4 hours extra so they could earn the same amount on Saturday. Either Ikezoe or Umezu said that on a temporary basis Respondent would give them 4 hours' pay on Saturday without working on Saturday. 14. The October 11 meeting On October 11, Umezu met with about 10 employees. He read the following in English and translated it into Japanese. The statement was also distributed to the employees present: Minimun [sic] working hour - 35 hrs per week Bonus of 4 hrs per week to be given only to persons who work 35 hours or over Overtime -to be given over 40 hours (actual worked time) Parttime workers not included Office not included Above condition temporary - There is some dispute as to what transpired at this meeting. Aoyagi testified that someone inquired why part- time workers were excluded. Umezu did not answer. Then someone asked why office workers were excluded. Umezu 19 Previously employees had worked 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. 5 days a week and 8 a.m. to 12 noon on Saturday. The hnotypists and the pressmen worked on 155 replied that traditionally Nichi Bei Times- office workers are not the same as other production workers "and, traditionally, they have a different system so they cannot be included. Someone said they understood. Aoyagi said part-time workers should be included because they come regularly and they have been coming in on Saturday at a regular time so they should receive the same benefits as other employees. Umezu: said part-time employees were different and he could not accept the suggestion that they receive the bonus and benefits. Someone asked what bonus meant. Umezu said this was money to cover the Saturday wages. Kadani said, "You promised to give us pay raise, you didn't and now you give us note like this. We cannot accept that." Umezu's testimony differs in one significant Tespect. He testified that when someone inquired as to why office employees were not included he replied that the office employees, were not included because,they worked strictly a 5-day week. After the meeting, office employee Ruth Toriumi reminded him that she worked a 6-day-meek and he agreed that she should have been included in the bonus plan. I credit Umezu in this regard. Both Aoyagi and Umezu impressed me as generally honest reliable witness- es. However, I find that Umezu's account as to his reply is inherently more consistent. It is obvious from previous discussions between employees, and management and from Umezu's handling of Toriumi's complaint that the bonus plan was implemented to compensate for the loss of wages which would be incurred by employees who normally worked a 6-day week. 15. The October 11 demand On October 7 the members of the Association met and decided to send Kadani and Aoyagi to the National Labor Relations Board; They also agreed on a draft of a letter to Respondent to clarify what they were claiming as their rights. Kadani drafted the letter using some language from the NLRB pamphlet "Layman's Guide to the National Labor Relations Act." Sometime between October 8 and 11, Kadani and Aoyagi went to the National Labor Relations Board. During that visit they showed a Board agent the draft of the letter they planned to send Respondent, explained the history of the Association, and inquired what they could do and what legal rights they had. The Board agent explained that no recommendation could be' made or advice given but did give them certain information. Specifically, the Board agent explained that it was necessary that the Association represent a majority of the employees in an appropriate bargaining unit, that they would have to be able to prove majority representation. There was some discussion as to the importance of Respondent's agreeing that the Association represented a majority of the employees. After Umezu left the October '11 meeting, some of the Association members remained in the room and decided to send to Respondent the letter they had drafted. Kadam and Aoyagi tried unsuccessfully to find Ikezoe. They then gave the letter to Abiko. Kadani said, "We come to this Saturday until 4 or 5 o'clock 156 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD conclusion, I want you to read it and discuss with the other management." The letter reads: ATTENTION: Management of the Nichi Bei Times Company We, the workers of the Nichi Bei Times Company, wish to, inform the management. that we intend to exercise our legal right to collective bargaining. We wish to clear up any confusion on the part of the management concerning the Nichi Bei Times Workers' Association (NBTWA). The NBTWA formed as an organization of the majority of workers at the Nichi Bei Times Company on July 24, 1974. At that time, we notified the Nichl' Bei Times Company of our organization, and presented our demands signed as such. We have issued membership cards, held regular meetings , and collected monthly dues from all mem- bers. We are prepared to prove our majority status by submitting signed membership cards to a mutually selected impartial person. We intend to exercise our legal right to collective bargaining according to the National Labor Relations Act, 'in particular Section 9(a) which states, "Representatives designated or selected for the purpose of collective' bargaining by the majority of the employ- ees in a unit appropriate for such purposes, shall be the exclusive representatives of all the employees in such unit for the purposes of collective bargaining in respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, or other conditions of employment." Further, we wish to clarify that our demands are within the definition of "man datory`subjects," and=thus require your good faith bargaining. This is clearly expressed in the National Labor Relations Act in Section 8(a)(5). Section 8(a)(5) is interpreted by the National Labor Relations Board as "The, duty to bargain covers all matters concerning rates of pay, wages , hours' of employment, or other conditions' of employment. These are called mandatory subjects of bargaining about which the ' employer, as well as the employees' representative 'must bargain in good faith ...These mandatory subjects of bargaining in- clude but are, not limited to such matters as pensions for present and retired employees, bonuses, group insurance , grievance procedure, safety practices, senior- ity, procedures for discharge, layoff, recall, or disci- pline, and the union shop." With this as a background, we re-emphasize our demands: 1) $1 per hour raise for all employees to provide a decent living wage. 2) An open wage system to end the manage- ment's deciet [sic] at manipulating our wages, fomenting suspicion and dis-unity amongst the employees. 3) A pension plan and a medical insurance plan paid by the company. 4) A clear explanation of management plans to improve the income of the Nichi Bei Times Company, specifically: a) improving the quality of the newspaper, especially ' the editorial policies. b) improving the operations of the print shop, increas- ing efficiency and business. - 10-11-74 Signed Nichi Bei Times : Workers' Association Later that : afternoon, Ikezoe approached Kadani and discussed the letter. According to Aoyagi, Ikezoe said he did not like legal disputes, that he thought there should be good relations within the Company, all one family. Aoyagi said he agreed, if possible, Ikezoe suggested that they either drop the charges or drop' the demands. , Aoyagi first testified that Ikezoe suggested that he withdraw filing charges with NLRB. On cross-examination he'admitted he was confused and he didn't recall whether'Ikezoe referred to charges or demands. His prehearing affidavit says "drop demands" Ikezoe testified that he simply asked for, a meeting concerning the letter and Aoyagi said he couldn't make 'the decision himself. In view of Aoyagi's admitted confusion and the fact that after 'Kadani- and Omi arrived there was no discussion regarding either dropping-demands or not filing NLRB charges, I credit Ikezoe's testimony that he only requested a meeting. Aoyagi called Kadani, Omi, and Umezu -over. Ikezoe said 'he was new20 and did not know what was going on. Kadani said, "What do you mean, you have worked here a long time and even if you were nit president, you knew what was going on." Kadani asked if he read the Association's letter. Ikezoe said yes. Kadani asked, "Do you admit that since July 24, 1974, the Association has a majority of all, employees of Nichi Bei Times?" Ikezoe said yes. Kadani said, "We'd like to have collective bargain- ing." Ikezoe said that's fine. They then discussed a date for the meeting. llcezoe suggested October, 15 and they agreed on that date. Omi testified that Ikezoe said he did not want a legal dispute, he -wanted to, work together as a happy family. He further testified: Stan wanted to make sure that they recognized us, so I can't remember the exact words, but I remember him asking if Nichi' Bei Times management recognized Nichi Bei Times Workers' Association as representing a majority of the workers at Nichi Bei Times since July 24, such being the sole representative of the workers at the Nichi Bei Times. Ikezoe said yes, he did. Then he said, I believe, was Mr. Ikezoe saying that he wanted to get together to talk to us. Omi further testified, that Ikezoe proposed a meeting on October 15 to set a date to have a meeting. The employees asked, why they could not have a meeting on October ,15. Ikezoe said they did not have time and they decided that on October 15 they would set a date for a long collective- 20 He was apparently referring to his new position as president. NICHI BEI TIMES COMPANY bargaining session. On cross-examination, he admitted that Ikezoe said he needed time because he was new. Ikezoe testified-that he suggested a meeting to talk over the letter just presented to management, that he emphasiz- ed the management did not want any confrontation with the workers. He further said he needed time to study the letter. He denies agreeing that the Association represented a majority of the employees. I credit Ikezoe's denial. The Association had obtained employee signatures on several documents. In each instance there were either 11 or 13 signatures.21 To a layman unfamiliar with the concept of excluding certain classifications of employees from an appropriate unit, this was not a majority. Also, Ikezoe's asking for time tends to corroborate his testimony that because of the legal phraseology in the Association's letter, he had determined to seek legal advice and his request for time was intended to afford him the necessary time to consult counsel. 16. The October 15 and 24 meetings After discussing the matter with other members of management, Ikezoe attempted to contact his attorney but learned he would not be in his office until October 21.On October 15, Ikezoe and Umezu met with the employees. Although there is some dispute as to why Ikezoe said he wanted to wait until October 24 to meet, it is agreed that he did ask for this delay. Ikezoe admits that he did not express the real reason he wanted the delay, which was to consult his attorney. On October 21, Ikezoe's attorney referred Respondent to a labor attorney whom they consulted on October 23. On October 24, at 5 p.m., the scheduled time for the meeting, people were still setting type, so Kadani and Aoyagi went to Ikezoe and asked if the meeting were going to take place as scheduled. lkezoe said it was impossible to finish the newspaper before 5 o'clock and asked that the bargaining be postponed until the next day. 17. The October 25 meeting On October 25, Ikezoe, Umezu and Namekawa met with the employees. Ikezoe read a copy of the following letter, dated October 24: Nichi Bei Times Workers' Association: This is in response to the undated letter addressed to "Attention: Management of the Nichi Bei Company," in which the Association claims that it represents a majority of our employees. Please be advised that we doubt that the Association actually represents a majority of our employees for purposes of collective bargaining in an appropriate bargaining unit. Accordingly, we must and hereby do decline to recognize the Association as the exclusive bargaining representative of our employees until such time as the Association has been certified by the National Labor Relations Board as the majority representative in an appropriate unit. Inasmuch as the Association does not represent a majority of our employees, it would be inappropriate to 157 either recognize it or bargain with it about the matter referred to in the letter. We believe that a secret ballot election conducted by the National Labor Relations Board is the most appropriate and fairest method of determining our employees' true desires. We desire such an election, not only to permit our employees to express their wishes freely, but also to obtain the benefits of the Act for ourselves and our employees. Recognition of the Association in the absence of a secret National Labor Relations Board election would not confer these benefits, or in my view, adequately protect the employees' free expression of their repre- sentative desires. Very truly yours, /s/ K. D. Ikezoe When Ikezoe finished reading the statement, he said, on the advice of his attorney, he would not elaborate on the statement or make any comments, and left. According to Aoyagi, Kadani said: For a long time we are suggesting and try to help you to improve Nichi Bei Times Company, and now you agree to meet us today. And you admit majority, but all of a sudden at this moment, you start to say you never admit us as a bargaining unit, representing Nichi Bei Times employees .... We are ready to show any proof of our majority to you, but you never ask for it and we are quite willing to go into election if it's necessary, conducted by NLRB. Ikezoe replied, on advice of his attorney, that he could not make any commitment. Ikezoe testified that someone, he thinks Kadani, said "you are stalling again." He does not remember Kadani or any employee saying they would be willing to have an election, and he denies that anything was said about the Association's representing employees. B. Conclusions 1. The no-solicitation rule Item 2 of the rules and regulations announced by Respondent on September 17 states: 2. No meetings of employees for purposes of organiz- ing or forming or propagating the contentions of any employees' association will be permitted on the premises of the Nichi Bei Times, or during working hours .... Even assuming that the phrase "during working hours" qualifies what appears to be an outright prohibition of union activities on Respondent's premises, the above rule unduly restricts the rights of employees under Section 7 of the Act since it appears to prohibit activity other than solicitation, it is directed only toward union activity, and the prohibition is not limited to actual working time. Florida Steel Corporation, 215 NLRB No. 23 (1974); Groendyke Transport, Inc., 211 NLRB 921 (1974); Pepsi- Cola Bottling Co. of Los Angeles, 211 NLRB 870 (1974). It 21 Two of the 13 signatures were crossed out on the later documents. 158 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD is immaterial whether the rule was ever enforced. It was never revoked so its coercive effect on employees remains. Cf. Phillips Industrial Components, Inc., 216 NLRB No. 106 (1975). Accordingly, I find that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1)-,of the Act as alleged in paragraph IX of the complaint. 2. The alleged refusal to bargain General Counsel contends that since July 24 the Association has represented a majority of Respondent's employees in a unit defined in the complaint as: All full-time and regular part-time mechanical depart- ment employees employed by Respondent at its Bush Street, San Francisco, California facility; excluding all other employees, office clerical employees, mailroom employees, editors, guards and supervisors as defined in the Act. General Counsel further contends that on or about July 24 Respondent recognized the Association as the exclusive bargaining representative for the employees in the afore- said unit; and thereafter met and bargained collectively concerning wages, hours of employment, and other terms and conditions of employment. General Counsel's basic theory of an 8(a)(5) violation is that Respondent's bargaining obligation arose from such voluntary recogni- tion and that thereafter Respondent refused to bargain in violation of the Act by its August 2 refusal to furnish to the Association requested information as to the wages of unit employees, and its unilateral October 5 cutback in publication schedule. Finally General Counsel contends that by its October 24 letter Respondent unlawfully withdrew its recognition of the Association as the statutory representative of its employees in the unit set forth above. Respondent's position is that the only appropriate unit is one including all employees of Respondent, excluding all managers , supervisors, and guards as defined by the Act. Basically, Respondent contends, and it is essentially undisputed, that all of its employees do some mechanical work. However, the record is clear that the percentage of time spent in such mechanical work is much less than that spent doing clerical and editorial work.22 In the newspaper industry the Board usually finds appropriate separate units of the various crafts. American- Republican, Incorporated, 171 NLRB 43 (1968); Garden Island Publishing Co., Ltd., 154 NLRB 697 (1965). However, the Board has also found appropriate multide- partment units comprising all mechanical employees in a single unit where there is no objection either by the employer or another union claiming to represent any mechanical craft on a separate basis. Garden Island Publishing Co., Ltd., supra. As to nonmechanical employ- ees, the Board has held that the optimum unit is one comprising all nonmechanical employees. The Salt Lake Tribune Publishing Company and Telegram Publishing Company, Employer, 92 NLRB 1411 (1951). However, 22 The exception is Kenichi Hmo, who since February 1975 has been doing more mechanical work. 23 It may be that Hino's interest is more closely aligned with the where the employer is organized on distinct departmental lines the Board has found appropriate separate departmen- tal units of nonmechanical employees. The Peoria Journal Star, Inc., 117 NLRB 708 (1957). Here Respondent's operation is not organized along distinct departmental lines and all employees except editorial employees are under the direct supervision of Umezu. Since the clerical employees and the editorial employees spend by far the majority of their time doing nonmechanical work, I fmd that the extent to which they perform mechanical work is insufficient to make inappro- priate their exclusion from the mechanical unit. According ly, I reject Respondent's contention that the only appropri- ate unit is one comprising all its employees and fmd that a unit of all mechanical employees is appropriate. The Respondent has raised no objections to the joinder of the mechanical departments. The remaining unit issue is which employees comprise the mechanical employees. As indicated above, I find that the clerical'employees and the editorial employees should be excluded from the unit.23 The parties are in agreement as to the inclusion of all other employees except the mailroom employees. At issue is whether mailroom employees have a sufficient community of interest with the mechanical employees where the unit sought is one crossing craft lines to encompass all mechanical employ- ees, some of whom are not truly craftsmen. As indicated above, Respondent's operation is not organized along distinct departmental lines, the mailroom employees are under the same supervision as those employees admittedly in the unit and they are all regular part-time employees who have the same benefits as other part-time employees. In fact, the term "mailroom employee" is a misnomer since there is no physically separate mailroom. Rather, these employees work in an area contiguous to, and unseparated from, the press area, and they use the addressograph machine used by employees admittedly in the unit. In these circumstances a separate unit of mailroom employees would be inappropriate. The Republican Company, 169 NLRB 1146 (1968). Thus the question is whether their community of interest is more closely aligned with the mechanical employees or with the nonmechanical employees. The Board has placed mailroom employees both in mechanical units and in nonmechanical units. I have found no express rationale for the distinction. However, it appears that where mailroom employees have been included in nonmechanical units, the unit has included circulation departments with whom the mailroom department most clearly has the greater commu- nity of interest. Lowell Sun Publishing Company, 132 NLRB 1168 (1961). Here, there is no circulation department. I find that the interest of the mailroom employees is more closely aligned to the employees admittedly in the unit than to clerical and editorial employees. Accordingly, I find that the appropriate unit is: All full-time and regular part-time mechanical depart- ment employees employed by Respondent at its Bush mechanical employees than with the clerical employees, however, it is unnecessary to reach that issue. NICHI BEI TIMES COMPANY Street, San Francisco, California facility; excluding all other employees, office clerical employees, editors, guards and supervisors as defined in the Act. However, I further find a substantial variance between the unit the Association claimed to represent in its demands and either the unit alleged appropriate in the complaint or the unit found appropriate herein. I perceive no valid interpretation of the Association's oral and written demands other than that it was seeking to bargain on behalf of all employees. Thus the July 24 demand referred to "we workers ," "a $1.00 raise for everybody, " and demands an explanation of why Respondent failed to hold a previously requested "'meeting of all workers and management" in order to' discuss inter alia better working conditions. The August 23 demands include "$1.00 per hour raise for all workers" and "a clear explanation of the wage rate for all NBT employees, including the manage- ment. Furthermore, the signatures on the signed demands included an editorial employee and the Association representatives clearly indicated in meetings that their demands were intended to encompass office employees. Thus they protested the failure to include office employees in the bonus plan. I find this to be a substantial variance. Boch Dodge, Inc. Boch Rambler, Inc., and National Discount Corp., all d/b/a Boch Motors, 177 NLRB.670 (1969). Not only does it amount to a 50 per cent increase in the size of the unit but the Association never had a majority in such a broad unit, a fact readily apparent to Respondent from the signed documents. I further reject General Counsel's contention that Respondent accorded voluntary recognition to the Associ- ation as the exclusive representative of its employees. Rather, I conclude that prior, to October 11, the Associa- tion never demanded such recognition nor did Respondent accord it. In so concluding, I am not suggesting that any special words are needed for a valid demand. I do think it is necessary , however, that the language used must be reasonably sufficient to apprise the employer that recogni- tion is being sought as the exclusive bargaining representa- tive of employees in some unit identifiable by the employer. Here, against the background of previous employer-employee relations, I conclude that the Associa- tion's demands were not sufficient to apprise Respondent that it was seeking recognition as the exclusive representa- tive of a group of employees. In fact, I am convinced that the Association was not seeking such recognition prior to October. And, even assuming it was, Respondent had no way of knowing it and its response was not intended to accord such recognition. Thus, the July and August "demands" were couched much the same as the "demands" made in August 1973 and on March 1, 1974. Respondent met with employees in response to those earlier demands. A wage increase was granted in August 1973 as a result . Aoyagi was then, as now, the principal spokesman for the employees. The August 1974 demands referred to the earlier demands. The Association representatives insisted that all employees be present at the meetings. I am of the opinion that this type of background requires something more than an announce- 159 ment that the Association had been formed in order to apprise Respondent that recognition as statutory represent- ative was being sought and something more than meeting with all employees to constitute according such recogni- tion. Actually the Association's October 11 letter concedes that Respondent had not accorded such recognition. Based on the foregoing, I find that prior to October 11, the Association never made a valid demand for recognition as the exclusive bargaining representative of Respondent's employees in an appropriate unit. I further find that Respondent never accorded the Association voluntary recognition as such in any unit. Accordingly, I find that Respondent had no obligation to bargain with the Association at any time prior to October 11. I shall therefore recommend that subparagraphs VIII (a) and (b) of the complaint be dismissed. The October 11 letter is an unmistakable demand for recognition. As set forth above, I - do not credit the testimony that Ikezoe expressly recognized the Association on that date. Since 'Respondent has engaged in no flagrant unfair labor practice, its October 24 refusal to recognize and bargain with the Association is not violative of Section 8(a)(5) of the Act. Linden Lumber Division, Summer & Company v. N.L. R.B., 419 U.S. 301 (1974). CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act. 2. The Association is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. By implementing and maintaining a rule which prohibits employees from, engaging in union activities on Respondent's premises or during working hours , Respon- dent has interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of their rights under Section 7 of the Act and has thereby engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Sections 8(a)(1) and 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. 4. Respondent has not violated Section 8 (a)(1) and (5) of the Act as alleged in paragraph VIII of the complaint herein. TIC REMEDY Having found that the Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, I shall recommend that the Respondent be ordered to cease and desist therefrom and from infringing in any like or related manner upon its employees' Section 7 rights, and that it take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law and the entire record in this proceeding, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended , I hereby recommend the following: 160 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ORDER24 Respondent, Nichi Bei Times Company, San Francisco, California, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Maintaining a rule which prohibits employees, from engaging in union activities on Respondent's premises or during working hours. (b) In any like or related manner Interfering with, restraining , or coercing 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 facilities in San Francisco, California, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 25 Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 20, after being duly signed by Respondent, shall be posted by it immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (b) Notify the Regional Director for Region 20, in writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint herein be dismissed as to those allegations contained in paragraph VIII thereof. 24 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102 46 of the Board's Rules and Regulations, the findings, conclusions, and recommend- ed Order herein shall, as provided in Sec. 102 48 of the Rules and Regulations , be adopted by the Board and become its findings, conclusions, and Order, and all objections thereto shall be deemed waived for all purposes. 25 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 read "Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board " APPENDIX NOTICE To EMPLOYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government After a hearing at which all sides had the opportunity to present their evidence, the National Labor Relations Board has found that we violated the National Labor, Relations Act, and has ordered us to post this notice and we intend to carry out the order of the Board. The Act gives all employees these rights: To engage in self-organization To form, join or help unions To bargain collectively through a representa- tive of their own choosing To act together for collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection To refrain from any and all these things. WE WILL NOT do anything that interferes with, restrains or coerces you with respect to these rights. More specifically, WE WILL NOT maintain a rule which prohibits employees from engaging in union activities on our premises, or during working hours. You and all our employees are free to become members of any labor organization, or to refrain from doing so. NICHI Bin Tunts COMPANY Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation