Omni Spectra, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 20, 1970

186 N.L.R.B. 673 (N.L.R.B. 1970)

OMNI SPECTRA, INC. 673
Omni Spectra, Inc. and International Union , United
Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement
Workers of America (UAW). Case 7-CA-6811
November 20, 1970
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND
ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS
FANNING AND JENKINS
On May 26, 1969, the Board issued a Decision and
Order in the above-entitled case, finding that Respon-
dent had not violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the
Act by certain of its actions and declining to decide
whether a warning to employees not to let their union
activities "bubble over" into working time violated
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. Reasoning that even if the
aforementioned warning was found to be a violation it
would be "too isolated to warrant the issuance of a
remedial order," the Board declined to pass on or
adopt the Trial Examiner's findings in this respect and
ordered that the complaint be dismissed.'
Thereafter, the Union petitioned for review of the
Board's Order and, on June 5, 1970, the United States
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit2 remanded the
case to the Board with instructions to "determine
whether the conduct complained of constitutes an
unfair labor practice, and, if it so decides, to issue a
cease-and-desist order and to grant any other such
relief as it may consider proper under the Act." The
Board has decided to accept the court's remand.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this case to a three-member
panel.
The Board having considered the entire record, and
being satisfied that the remanded issue may be
resolved on the basis thereof, finds as follows:
The Trial Examiner found that after an argument
involving union membership cards, which took place
during working time, but stemmed from an incident
that occurred during a break, two employees com-
plained that they were being harassed by Ruby
Tucker and Stella Maki, two employee organizers.
Because of these complaints, Tucker and Maki were
separately called into the office of Personnel Manager
Petersen, where they had substantially the same
interview. Each was advised that she could carry on
union activities before and after work as well as
during lunch and rest periods but that she should
conduct herself in such a manner that her activities
during those periods would not "bubble over" into
working time. It is on these points that we are asked to
decide whether Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1).
In finding the violation, the Trial Examiner reasoned
that: "This was an improper restriction . . . for it was
a warning to the employees that they should tone
down their union activities during their free time, and
in effect made them responsible for the aftereffects
which their activities might have upon the other
employees."
Upon reconsideration, we find contrary to the Trial
Examiner, that these warnings did not constitute an
unlawful restriction on Tucker and Maki's union
activities in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
These carefully limited warnings were merely reitera-
tions of Respondent's valid, posted no-solicitation
rule, prompted by Tucker and Maki's disruptions of
work in violation thereof. In the circumstances, and as
Tucker and Maki could only have understood the
warnings as having been prompted by and in
reference to the incident in which they had, in fact,
allowed their union activities to extend into working
time, we shall dismiss the complaint.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board hereby orders that the complaint be,
and it hereby is, dismissed in its entirety.
t 176 NLRB No 24
2 427 F 2d 1330
186 NLRB No. 93