North American Refractories Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 31, 2000

331 N.L.R.B. 1640 (N.L.R.B. 2000)

DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 1640
North American Refractories Co. and United Steel-
workers of America, AFL–CIO Cases 7–CA–
39958 and Case 7–CA–40626
August 31, 2000
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS FOX, LIEBMAN, AND HURTGEN
On December 23, 1998, Administrative Law Judge Ir-
win H. Socoloff issued the attached decision. The Gen-
eral Counsel filed exceptions and a supporting brief, and
the Respondent filed a cross-exception and supporting
brief and a brief in opposition to the General Counsel’s
exceptions.
The National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the decision and the record
in light of the exceptions and briefs and has decided to
affirm the judge’s rulings, findings,1 and conclusions and
to adopt the recommended Order as modified.2
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board adopts the rec-
ommended Order of the administrative law judge as
modified below and orders that the Respondent, North
American Refractories Co., White Cloud, Michigan, its
officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the
action set forth in the Order as modified.
1. Substitute the following for paragraph 2(b).
“(b) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at
its facility in White Cloud, Michigan, copies of the at-
tached notice marked “Appendix.”5 Copies of the notice,
on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region
7, after being signed by the Respondent's authorized rep-
resentative, shall be posted by the Respondent and main-
tained 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
Respondent to ensure that the notices are not altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material. In the event
that, during the pendency of these proceedings, the Re-
spondent has gone out of business or closed the facility
involved in these proceedings, the Respondent shall du-
plicate and mail, at its own expense, a copy of the notice
to all current employees and former employees employed
by the Respondent at any time since December 23,
1997.”

1 There are no exceptions to the judge’s finding that the Respondent
violated Sec. 8(a)(1) of the Act by maintaining an overly broad no-
solicitation and no-distribution rule, or to the judge’s recommended
dismissal of an allegation that the Respondent violated Sec. 8(a)(3) of
the Act by discharging Douglas Rand. There are also no exceptions to
the judge’s recommended dismissals of allegations of disparate en-
forcement of housekeeping and distributions rules and coercive interro-
gation of employees concerning their union activities and those of other
employees. The General Counsel excepted to the judge’s dismissal of
an allegation that Rand’s discharge independently violated Sec. 8(a)(1).
For the reasons given by the judge, we adopt his recommended dis-
missal of the latter allegation.
2 We have modified the judge’s Order to conform with the require-
ments of Excel Containers, Inc., 325 NLRB 17 (1997).
5 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 Na-
tional Labor Relations Board” shall read “Posted Pursuant to a Judg-
ment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the
National Labor Relations Board.”

Dwight R. Kirksey, Esq., for the General Counsel.
David A. Kadela, Esq., of Columbus, Ohio, for the Respondent.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
IRWIN H. SOCOLOFF, Administrative Law Judge. Upon
charges filed on June 23, 1997, and February 2, 1998, by, re-
spectively, United Steelworkers of America, AFL–CIO, (the
Union), and Douglas Rand against North American Refracto-
ries Co., (Respondent), the General Counsel of the National
Labor Relations Board, by the Regional Director for Region 7,
issued a complaint dated April 15, 1998, alleging violations 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 unfair labor practices.
Pursuant to notice, trial was held before me in Grand Rapids,
Michigan, on July 27, 28 and 29, 1998, at which the General
Counsel and the Respondent were represented by counsel and
were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine and
cross-examine witnesses and to introduce evidence. Thereafter,
the parties filed briefs which have been duly considered.
Upon the entire record in these cases, and from my observa-
tions of the witnesses, I make the following
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. JURISDICTION
Respondent, North American Refractories Co., a corpora-
tion, operates a plant in White Cloud, Michigan, and is engaged
in the manufacture and nonretail sale of refractory bricks and
related products. During the year ending December 31, 1997,
Respondent, in conducting its business operations at White
Cloud, purchased and received at the facility goods valued in
excess of $50,000, sent directly from points located outside the
State of Michigan. I find that Respondent is an employer en-
gaged 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 Sec-
tion 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Background
North American Refractories Co. (NARCO) is headquartered
in Cleveland, Ohio, and operates some 10 facilities in the
United States and Canada. At all of those locations, save the
White Cloud, Michigan plant, involved in this proceeding, the
production and maintenance employees are represented by the
Steelworkers. At White Cloud, organizational activity on be-
half of the Union occurred between May 14, 1997, and July 17,
1997, when the Union lost a Board-conducted election by a
vote of 65 to 39. In the period preceding the election, the
Company campaigned against unionization at White Cloud.
331 NLRB No. 182
NORTH AMERICAN REFRACTORIES CO. 1641
Some 6 months after the election, on January 15, 1998,
NARCO discharged its press operator, Douglas Rand, who,
earlier, had served as one of the 10 employees on the Union’s
in-plant organizing committee. In the instant case, the General
Counsel contends that Rand was fired because he engaged in
union activities, in violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act, and
because, immediately preceding the discharge, on January 12,
he and fellow employees concertedly complained to a man-
agement representative about working conditions, in violation
of Section 8(a)(1). Respondent asserts that the discharge oc-
curred as a result of Rand’s misconduct on January 12. Also at
issue is whether NARCO violated Section 8(a)(1) of the statute
by maintaining, before and after the election, unlawfully broad
no–solicitation and no–distribution rules; by disparately enforc-
ing its distribution and housekeeping rules and by coercively
interrogating employees concerning their union activities and
those of other employees.
B. Facts1
As contained in its handbook, distributed to every employee,
Respondent, at all material times, maintained “Standards Of
Conduct” to which employees were expected to conform their
behavior. Included were prohibitions against “soliciting, vend-
ing or collecting without permission” and “distributing com-
munications without permission,” rules enforceable by “disci-
pline up to and including dismissal.” These rules were in effect
during the Union’s organizational drive, but were not enforced.
Indeed, the record contains no evidence of employer interfer-
ence with protected solicitations on nonwork time, or protected
distributions on nonwork time and in nonwork areas, at all. On
April 22, 1998, a week after the consolidated amended com-
plaint issued in these matters, the foregoing rules were effec-
tively repealed.
Employee Lorry Austin testified that, in mid-May 1997, she
and 3 fellow workers made initial contact with the Union and,
shortly thereafter, the in-plant committee, including Rand, was
formed. Committee members, generally, solicited other em-
ployees to sign union authorization cards, campaigned for the
Union and distributed flyers and other information. Following
the filing of an election petition with the Board, on June 6,
1997, some committee members, on a daily basis, distributed
prounion literature, on each shift, in the lunchroom and the
men’s and ladies’ locker rooms, for perusal by employees be-
fore and after work and during the designated breaks and the
lunch period. While a few of the committee members passed
out flyers person-to-person, others, like Austin, did so before
work, and at the start of breaks, by leaving copies on the tables,
microwaves, refrigerator, and counters in the lunchroom and in
various places in the locker rooms. Multiple copies were left
on each lunchroom table, and at the other locations. On June

1 The fact-findings contained herein are based upon a composite of
the documentary and testimonial evidence introduced at trial. While,
generally, the record is free of significant testimonial conflict, I have,
infra, where necessary to do so in order to resolve material questions
created by differences in the testimony, set forth credibility resolutions.
In general, I found Respondent’s supervisor, Roger Lowe, an honest
and forthright witness and I have relied upon his testimony. On the
other hand, I have viewed with some suspicion disputed portions of the
testimony of Charging Party Rand, and that of fellow employee Mar-
shall Wilkinson, in view of their initial claims, which they recanted
when confronted with contrary documentary evidence, that they
worked together as partners, on the same press, on January 12, 1998,
immediately preceding the incident which led to Rand’s discharge.
23, Austin and employee Henry Rodriguez talked to Human
Resources/Safety Coordinator Jim Casteel, and asked for per-
mission to post prounion flyers on the plant bulletin board
where the Company posted antiunion literature. On the next
day, Casteel responded, denying the request, but assuring the
employees that they were free to distribute flyers in the lunch-
room and the locker rooms, during breaks.
Company policy concerning housekeeping is contained in
the employee handbook and, Austin and others testified, is
addressed frequently by management officials at employee
meetings. Thus, the undisputed evidence shows that employees
are often reminded of Respondent’s emphasis on cleanliness, in
work and nonwork areas, and of the Company’s expectation
that the workers and supervisors will pick up after themselves
in the lunchroom and, if necessary, will pick up after others. In
the June 23 to June 26 period, further uncontradicted evidence
reveals, on several occasions following break periods, Casteel
and the then plant engineer, Jim Maile, statutory supervisors,
removed and discarded prounion flyers spread out on the lunch-
room tables and, to some degree, on the floor. On other occa-
sions, following management meetings employees concerning
the subject of organization, company representatives similarly
treated antiunion literature distributed at the meetings and left
behind by the employees. In both cases, Casteel and Maile
testified, their concern was obedience to the housekeeping pol-
icy and not the content of the flyers.
In support of the General Counsel’s claim that the handbook
rules were disparately enforced, evidence was proffered at trial
showing instances in which lunch trash and nonorganizational
reading materials were left in the lunchroom, and were not
removed. Thus, Austin testified that, on a typical day, one or
two magazines could be found in that room and, occasionally,
one or two copies of a flyer left undisturbed on a table. Other
witnesses testified that, despite the occasional appearance of
lunch debris, and, or, magazines or a newspaper, the lunchroom
and, particularly, the tabletops, were kept clean and uncluttered.
The period of the union campaign apparently presented a dif-
ferent situation than theretofore encountered as, following
breaks, as many as five leaflets were left, per table, as well as
those that remained on the counters, microwaves, refrigerator
and the floor. Casteel testified that the failure of employees to
remove leaflets, following breaks, pursuant to the housekeeping
policy, gave rise to complaints by other employees concerning
the frequent disarray in the lunch and locker rooms, contrary to
their normal appearance.
With regard to the complaint allegations of unlawful interro-
gation, employee Marshall Wilkinson testified that, in Decem-
ber 1997, he entered the lunchroom to buy a coke and encoun-
tered First Line Supervisors Roger Lowe and Mark McGowan.
According to Wilkinson, Lowe told him that other supervisors
“were talking and wondering” about what he, Wilkinson,
thought of the Union. Wilkinson did not respond. Lowe, in his
testimony, denied that he ever questioned Wilkinson about the
Union, or about how the employee felt about the Union. For
the reasons noted at footnote 1, I credit Lowe, rather than Wil-
kinson, and find that the alleged conversation did not, in fact,
occur. The General Counsel also offered the testimony of em-
ployee Mark Hayes who, during the campaign, served on the
in-plant committee, solicited employees, at work, to sign union
authorization cards, distributed prounion literature and talked to
employees in favor of the Union. Hayes testified that he made
known to his immediate supervisor, Jim Jones, his union senti-
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 1642
ments. According to Hayes, in January or February 1998, in
the course of conversation, Jones asked Hayes if he had heard
anything about another union drive starting up, and Hayes said,
no. Jones, in his testimony, denied that he ever questioned
Hayes about unionization. Jones credibly testified that it was
Hayes who frequently attempted to engage him in discourse
about the Union and who made clear to the supervisor that he,
Hayes, was in favor of the Union.
Douglas Rand was hired by Respondent on May 17, 1993.
In October 1994, he became a press operator, a position he
occupied until his termination on January 15, 1998. During the
organizing drive, Rand signed an authorization card and, as
noted, was one of 10 members of the in-plant committee. For
the duration of the campaign, he wore a “Vote Yes” button on
his hat. In late June, his friend and coworker, Mark McGowan,
then in training to be a supervisor and who was, later, to be-
come Rand’s immediate boss, looked at Rand’s hat, chuckled,
and referred to Rand as “one of the gullible ones.” In Novem-
ber, employee Wilkinson testified, he, Wilkinson, was told by
Supervisor Lowe that he “needed to try and stay away from
Doug . . . eventually he’s gonna go down and I’d hate for you
to go down with him.”
The press operators, running their machines, make refractory
bricks from mixed material, referred to in the plant as “dirt.”
Operators are paid an hourly rate, plus a shift differential and,
also, a bonus rate based on productively, that is, the number of
bricks made per hour as calculated at the end of the month. If,
in the course of their shifts, operators run out of dirt, creating
downtime for their machines, this, through no fault of their
own, will negatively impact on their bonus earnings. Rand, in
the last 6 months of his employment, was one of 6 or 6 opera-
tors on the second of three shifts, working, variously, 1-person
and 2-person machines. When he worked a 2-person job, he
was generally paired with Wilkinson. Rand, consistently, was
one of the top bonus rate earners. Indeed, his productivity often
earned him a bonus rate almost equal to his hourly rate of pay.
On September 8, 1997, 2 months after the election, he received
his last employee evaluation, and was rated “exceeds require-
ments” in all areas evaluated.
In December 1997, while Rand temporarily was working on
the third shift under Supervisor Marty Smith, his press ran out
of material, or dirt, leaving him with nothing to produce. Rand
testified that he “mouthed off” to Smith about it, in the pres-
ence of Wilkinson. Later in the day, Smith called Rand aside
and told him that he, Smith, did not appreciate Rand’s behavior.
No discipline ensued. In early January 1998, during the course
of the shift, Rand had a conversation with a second shift super-
visor, Mark McGowan, and temporary employee Jimmy White.
Rand called McGowan “a dumb asshole,” and turned to White
and told him that “after you get your 90 days in, you can call
him whatever you want.” When White left the area, McGowan
expressed to Rand his displeasure at what Rand had said, “es-
pecially in front of a new employee.” Again, no discipline
ensued.
On January 12, 1998, Rand operated press number 3, under
the supervision of McGowan. He ran out of dirt on several
occasions and, as a result, he did not achieve his normal pro-
duction for the day. For the last 30 to 45 minutes of his shift,
he had no dirt to work with at all. At the end of the shift, he and
other second-shift employees and supervisors went to the
locker room, and many of them showered. At that time, em-
ployee Mark Hayes testified, he, Hayes, Rand, and other em-
ployees talked about the fact that Rand kept running out of dirt
and that there was no reason for it, a matter of concern to all of
them. As Rand got out of the shower, an announcement was
made over the public address system that dirt was then avail-
able for press number 3. Then, in the presence of some 10
employees, as well as Supervisor Lowe, Rand angrily ap-
proached McGowan and said, “You stupid mother fucker . . .
the third shift gets material from the control room, you stupid
mother fucker.” Hayes joined in, asking McGowan if it was
not his responsibility as shift supervisor to see to it that the
operators had enough dirt. McGowan told Hayes that the mat-
ter was none of his concern and then, visibly embarrassed, the
supervisor walked out of the area.
McGowan reported the forgoing incident to Production Su-
perintendent Troy Frisbie who, in turn, reported it to Assistant
Plant Manager Al Hendricks and Human Resources/Safety
Coordinator Casteel. On January 13, they met with McGowan
and, later, Rand, to ascertain what had occurred. When Rand,
who claimed the matter was a joke, admitted to the incident, as
described by McGowan, Frisbee told him that he was sus-
pended “with an eye toward termination,” pending further in-
vestigation. Thereafter, upon such investigation, Casteel
learned of the then recent prior incidents involving supervisors
Smith and McGowan. On January 16, Casteel and Hendricks
discharged Rand, after consultation with the corporate office,
for violating company rules by use of “lewd or vulgar lan-
guage” toward a supervisor and insubordination.
There is literally a ton of record evidence in support of the
proposition that use of swear words, including the one used by
Rand on January 12, is commonplace in the shop, by and be-
tween employees and supervisors, to “color conversation.”
However, the witnesses who so testified were able, when asked
to do so, readily to distinguish such talk from angry use of
those words, directed at someone in particular, muchless a su-
pervisor, in attack fashion. The record contains evidence of
only one prior comparable incident, in December 1996, when
employee Fred Peabody, upset about his evaluation, told super-
visors Jones and Lowe that “they were assholes and people
basically had to kiss their asses to get a good evaluation there.”
Hendricks and Casteel, after learning of the verbal assault, gave
Peabody a written warning and told him that they could have
fired him for that conduct. At trial, Casteel distinguished the
Rand and Peabody incidents, accounting for the lesser disci-
pline meted out to Peabody, based on the first-time nature of
the Peabody offense and the fact that it occurred outside the
presence of other employees. Hendricks testified that, although
Respondent maintains a progressive disciplinary system, it had
previously discharged employees David Parker and John Fox
for first offense serious safety violations.
C. Conclusions
As shown in the Statement of Facts, throughout the organiz-
ing campaign, and until April 22, 1998, the Company main-
tained rules, enforced or not, disseminated to all employees,
prohibiting, without limitation, protected solicitations and dis-
tributions absent prior approval of management. Such overly
broad rules are violative of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. How-
ever, with regard to its confiscation and removal of union litera-
ture from the employee lunchroom, during working time, in the
June 23, to June 26, 1997, period, the evidence shows that Re-
spondent acted to enforce its housekeeping rules, and did so in
a nondiscriminatory manner. Thus, Company officials had
NORTH AMERICAN REFRACTORIES CO. 1643
expressly informed inquiring employees, orally, that they were
free to distribute prounion flyers in the lunchroom during
breaks, and the Company did not interfere when they did so.
To the extent that Respondent, nonetheless, confiscated and
removed flyers left behind following break periods, the evi-
dence shows that it acted with equal zeal in so collecting anti-
union literature. The record reveals a longtime and consistent
emphasis by the Company on neatness and cleanliness, in work
and nonwork areas, which, at least to some degree, came under
assault during the campaign. That the evidence also shows that
there were occasions when some lunch trash, a magazine or
two, or. even a newspaper were not immediately removed from
the lunchroom, following a break, is not indicative of a dis-
criminatory purpose by NARCO in picking up leaflets, after a
break, which were scattered five to a table, and on the counters,
microwaves, refrigerator, and floor, and which were the subject
of employee complaints due to the disarray. In all the circum-
stances, I find the evidence insufficient to show that, in gather-
ing up the literature, on a few occasions between June 23, and
June 26, Respondent violated the Act.
As further shown in the Statement of Facts, in light of my
credibility determinations, I have found that Supervisor Lowe
did not question employee Wilkinson, late in 1997, concerning
his feelings about the Union. Thus, this allegation of the Com-
pliant must be dismissed. As to the General Counsel’s conten-
tion that Respondent, early in 1998, engaged in an unlawful
interrogation when Supervisor Jones allegedly questioned em-
ployee Hayes about whether or not another union drive might
start up, I find no violation of the Act in that regard, even as-
suming that the matter occurred as described by Hayes. The
undisputed record evidence reveals that Hayes was an un-
abashed union activist who, frequently, made known his union
sentiments to Jones, his immediate supervisor in charge of pro-
duction for the shift. Prior to the incident in question, Hayes,
repeatedly, had attempted to engage Jones in talk about the
union. The conversation at issue, if it occurred at all, was cas-
ual and offhand, and took place on the work floor between an
employee and a low level supervisor, without threat or prom-
ises. Under Rossmore House2 such questioning does not vio-
late the Act as, in all the circumstances, it does not tend rea-
sonably to restrain, coerce or interfere with statutory rights.
With regard to the Rand discharge, I conclude that when he,
and Hayes, complained to Supervisor McGowan about the lack
of “dirt” for Rand’s press on the just concluded January 12,
second shift (a matter discussed amongst the shift employees
and of immediate concern to all of them), they were engaged in
concerted activity, ordinarily protected under Section 7 of the
Act. But, by the manner in which Rand proceeded, a profane,
vulgar attack directed at his supervisor, his conduct lost the
protection of the Act it otherwise would have enjoyed. Federal
labor law simply does not provide a shield against the conse-
quences of such insubordinate behavior.3
Some 6 months prior to his discharge, Rand had supported
the Union’s organizational drive, and Respondent knew it.
During the course of the campaign, the Company made clear to
the employees that it opposed unionization. Nonetheless, any
number of factors present in this case convince me that Re-
spondent would have suspended Rand on January 13, and dis-
charged him on January 15, even absent his union activities.

2 269 NLRB 1176 (1984), enfd. 760 F.2d 1006 (9th Cir. 1985).
3 Foodtown Supermarkets, Inc., 268 NLRB 630 (1984).
Thus, the record contains no evidence that Respondent, long
after the campaign had concluded, harbored resentment toward
employees who had favored the Union. Nor is there evidence
that Respondent, at any time, opposed organization by unlawful
means. The Rand discharge occurred long after union activities
at the plant had ceased and, in any event, Rand’s actions in
support of the Union, even during the campaign, did not distin-
guish him from other union supporters, at least some of whom
were far more active. Few employers indeed would have toler-
ated Rand’s outburst of January 12, 1998. Nor, in disciplining
him, did Respondent act in a manner inconsistent with past
practice.
In light of the above, I conclude that Rand’s suspension and
discharge were not violative of the statute. Accordingly, both
the 8(a)(1) and 8(a)(3) allegations regarding same must be dis-
missed.
IV. THE EFFECTS OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
UPON COMMERCE
The activities of Respondent set forth in section III, above,
occurring in connection with its operations described in section
1, above, have a close, intimate and substantial relation 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 unfair
labor practice conduct in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act,
I shall recommend that it be ordered to cease and desist there-
from and to take certain affirmative action designed to effectu-
ate the policies of the Act.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. North American Refractories Co. is an employer engaged
in commerce, and in operations affecting commerce, within the
meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
2. United Steelworkers of America, AFL–CIO, is a labor or-
ganization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By maintaining overly broad no-solicitation and no-
distribution rules restricting employee conduct in these regards,
Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practice conduct within
the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
5. Respondent has not otherwise violated the Act, as alleged
in the Complaint.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact, and conclusions of law,
and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I hereby issue the
following recommended4
ORDER
Respondent, North American Refractories Co., White Cloud,
Michigan, its officers, agents, successors and assigns shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Maintaining overly broad rules restricting employee so-
licitations and distributions.
4 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the Board's
Rules and Regulations, the findings, conclusions, and recommended
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 pur-
poses.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 1644
(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 necessary to effec-
tuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Rescind its overly board no-solicitation and no-
distribution rules.
(b) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at its fa-
cility in White Cloud, Michigan, copies of the attached notice
marked “Appendix.”5 Copies of the notice, on forms provided
by the Regional Director for Region 7, after being signed by
Respondent’s authorized representative, shall be posted by
Respondent and maintained for 60 consecutive days, in con-
spicuous places, including all places where notices to employ-
ees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by
Respondent to ensure that the notices are not altered, defaced or
covered by any other material. In the event that Respondent has
gone out of business or closed the facility involved in this pro-
ceeding, it shall duplicate and mail, at its own expense, a copy

5 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 Na-
tional Labor Relations Board” shall read “Posted Pursuant to a Judg-
ment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the
National Labor Relations Board.”
of the notice to all current and former employees employed by
Respondent at any time since January 1, 1997.
(c) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file with the
Regional Director a sworn certification of a responsible official,
on a form provided by the Region, attesting to the steps that
Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
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 ordered us to post and abide
by this notice.

WE WILL NOT maintain overly broad rules restricting you
solicitations and distributions.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner, interfere with,
restrain, or coerce you in the exercise of the rights guaranteed
you in Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL rescind our overly broad no-solicitation and no-
distribution rules.
NORTH AMERICAN REFRACTORIES CO.