Page Avjet, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 31, 1986

278 N.L.R.B. 444 (N.L.R.B. 1986)

444 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Page Avjet , Incorporated and International Associa-
tion of Machinists and Aerospace Workers,
AFL-CIO and James R. Chapman . Cases 12-
CA-10277 and 12-CA-10363
31 January 1986
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN DOTSON AND MEMBERS
DENNIS AND BABSON
On 29 July 1983 Administrative Law Judge
Robert A. Gritta issued the attached decision. The
Respondent and the General Counsel filed excep-
tions and supporting briefs, and the Respondent
filed a brief in opposition to the General Counsel's
exceptions.
The National Labor Relations Board has delegat-
ed 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, and
conclusions,' as modified, and to adopt the recom-
mended Order.
We agree with the judge that the Respondent
violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by promulgating
and maintaining an unlawfully broad no-solici-
tation/no-distribution rule. In finding the rule in-
valid, the judge relied on TRW Bearings, 257
NLRB 442 (1981). While TRW was overruled in
Our Way, Inc., 268 NLRB 394 (1983), after the
judge's decision issued , we find the rule the Re-
spondent promulgated, prohibiting solicitation and
distribution during "working hours," is unlawful
under the standard set forth in Our Way.
In adopting the judge's conclusion that Supervi-
sor Hodges' statement to employee Lopez that he
had heard Lopez was passing out cards did not
constitute unlawful 'surveillance or the impression
of surveillance, we rely particularly on the fact
that Hodges had received a report, that Lopez had
been soliciting authorization cards during worktime
and informed Lopez of this report when inquiring
about the cards.
We do not agree with the judge that Supervisor
Price's 26 May 1982 inquiry to employee Tucker as
to whether Tucker was involved with the Union
"again" was a violation of Section 8(a)(1). We find
that Price's comment was free of accompanying
coercive statements and therefore did not violate
1 The judge found that Supervisor Roth's 1 June 1982 remarks to em-
ployee Dey did not constitute coercive interrogation . Member Dennis
finds it unnecessary to pass on this finding because a further finding of
unlawful interrogation would be cumulative and would not affect the
Order.
Section 8(a)(1).2 Accordingly, we reverse the
judge's finding. Rossmore House, 269 NLRB 1176
(1984); Sunnyvale Medical Clinic, 277 NLRB 1217
(1985).
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board adopts the
recommended Order of the administrative law
judge and orders that the Respondent, Page Avjet,
Incorporated, Orlando, Florida, its officers, agents,
successors, and assigns, shall take the action set
forth in the Order.
2 Under all the circumstances , Member Dennis would find that Super-
visor Price's questioning of employee Tucker, who was not an open
union adherent , was coercive and therefore violated Sec . 8(a)(1). See her
dissenting opinion in Sunnyvale Medical Clinic, supra
Priscilla Morgan Fenton, Esq., for the General Counsel.
Richard N. Chapman, Esq. (Harris Bench, Wilcox, Rubin,
Levey), of Rochester, New York, for the Respondent.
H.C. Summers, of Atlanta, Georgia, for the Charging
Party.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
ROBERT A. GRrrrA, Administrative Law Judge. This
case was tried before me on November 18 and 19, 1982,
in Orlando, Florida, based on charges filed by Interna-
tional Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers,
AFL-CIO and James R. Chapman, an individual (the
Union and the Charging Party, respectively) on July 20
and October 1, 1982, and a consolidated complaint issued
by the -Regional Director for Region 12 of the National
Labor Relations Board on November 5, 1982.1 The com-
plaint alleges that the Page Avjet, Incorporated (Re-
spondent) violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act by
interference, threats, coercion, and issuance of a discrimi-
natory warning and a discriminatory refusal of light
work to an injured union proponent. Respondent's timely
answer denies the commission of any unfair labor prac-
tices notwithstanding Respondent's admission at trial to
paragraph 11,A of the complaint and the attendant con-
clusionary paragraphs of the complaint.
All parties hereto were afforded full opportunity to be
heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, to intro-
duce evidence, and to argue orally. Briefs were submit-
ted by the General Counsel and Respondent. Both briefs
were duly considered.2
On the entire record in this case and from my observa-
tion of the witnesses and their demeanor on the witness
stand, and on substantive, reliable evidence considered
All dates herein are in 1982 unless otherwise specified
The General Counsel's motion in brief to reoffer the affidavit of em-
ployee Michael Belcher as substantive evidence to prove a complaint al-
legation is denied for failure to meet the requirements of the Federal
Rules of Evidence respecting hearsay and admissibility of evidence.
278 NLRB No. 63
PAGE AVJET, INC.
along with the consistency and inherent probability of
testimony, I make the following3
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. JURISDICTION AND STATUS OF LABOR
ORGANIZATION-PRELIMINARY CONCLUSIONS OF
LAW
The complaint alleges, Respondent admits, and I find
that Page Avjet, Incorporated is a New York corpora-
tion engaged in the business of modifying and refurbish-
ing aircraft passenger compartments in Orlando, Florida.
Jurisdiction is not in issue. Page Avjet, Incorporated, in
the past 12 months, in the course and conduct of its busi-
ness operations purchased and received at its Orlando,
Florida facility goods and materials valued in excess of
$50,000 directly from points located outside the State of
Florida. I conclude and fmd that Page Avjet, Incorporat-
ed is an employer engaged in commerce and in oper-
ations affecting commerce within the meaning of Section
2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
The complaint alleges, Respondent admits, and I con-
clude and fmd that the Union is a labor organization
within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
II. BACKGROUND
Respondent's facility is housed in several hangars near
the Orlando International Jetport. The work force num-
bers approximately 275 employees among the woodshop,
sheet metal fabrication shop, cabinet shop, and uphol-
stery shop. Employees work three shifts to customize the
aircraft interiors either to customer specifications or es-
tablished designs. Approximately 30 leadmen work in the,
various shops on all shifts to supplement the direction
given by the shop and plant supervisors. Respondent's
entrance classification is trainee and progression is
toward craftsman status such as cabinetmaker, sheet
metal mechanic, upholster, and installer.
The Union began an onsite campaign in May signaled
by a letter dated May 23 and received by Respondent
May 25, naming six employee-in-plant committeemen:
James Chapman, Scott Beaufait, David Dey, Samuel
Previti, Michael Belcher, and Tim Duke. Employees en-
gaged in union solicitation and distribution of union liter-
ature on Respondent's premises. Several work rules were
enforced during the campaign leading, at least partly, to
the issues involved in this case. Several employee and su-
pervisory witnesses testified during the proceeding and
the pertinent portions of their testimony are summarized
below.
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
Samuel J. Previti testified that he has been employed 1
year in the cabinet shop as a cabinetmaker. The shop su-
pervisor was Herb Schumann, but on May 27 Jim Price,
a The General Counsel and Respondent's counsel filed separate mo-
tions to correct the transcript in several particulars. Although not entire-
ly identical much of the substance is repeated between them. I grant both
motions to correct the transcript and receive the General Counsel's
motion and Respondent 's motion into the record as G.C. Exh. 6 and R.
Exh. 4, respectively.
445
production manager, announced to the shop employees
on first and second shifts, in a meeting between shifts,
that Louis Adams was the new shop supervisor. During
the meeting Previti questioned, Price about several em-
ployees' previous denials to accept distribution of union
literature in the employee break area before shift starting
time.
Previti stated that there is no existing written policy
on solicitation or distribution on company premises.
However, Price at the meeting stated that employees
were not supposed to hand out literature before or after
work. Only during lunchtime, lunchbreak, or on break-
times could employees distribute literature. Employees
have during one Christmas season sold raffle tickets in
the cabinet shop during working hours, but apparently it
was not known to supervision at the time . Previti added
that he saw union literature distributed by employees
before shift on the company premises after the cabinet
shop employees meeting of May 27. Previti himself dis-
tributed union literature in the company parking lot
before shift and after shift. Previti was never denied the
distribution nor was he later disciplined for it.
Kurt Niedrich testified that he has worked as a cabi-
netmaker for 2 years. He presently works the third shift,
11:30 p.m. to 7:30 a.m. Several days after the union letter
naming the in-plant organizing committee was received
by Respondent, Schumann engaged Niedrich in conver-
sation just before the shift ended. Schumann asked if
anything unusual happened yesterday. Niedrich replied,
"No," and Schumann referred to the letter. Niedrich
could not recall if Schumann asked or not but he ex-
plained to Schumann that people had been talking about
the letter for a week and some employees had brought
the letter to his bench during working time but Niedrich
did not take the time to read it. Schumann asked, "who"
but Niedrich simply grinned. Schumann returned the
grin and stated, "Okay, by the way, they are throwing a
party." Niedrich responded, "As far as I know, its not a
union party just Jim Chapman's party." Schumann -said,
"Thought I would ask." That ended the conversation.
Niedrich attended the May 27 meeting of the wood-
shop employees chaired by Jim Price. Niedrich recalled
that it must have been an employee celebration or other-
wise he would not have been there. When an airplane is
finished the employees get off early to have a little party.
Price announced the new supervisors and someone asked
why everyone is scared to sign union cards. Price said,
"I don't know nothing about who signs cards and who
don't. I have been in unions off and on, but, what really
is a union going to get you here?" Price told the employ-
ees, "Go for it if you want to." In response to a question,
Price told the employees that cards could be solicited
during breaktime, during off time, and if the soliciting
employee was off the clock he could not hold up some-
one who was on working time . Th'e solicitation could be
in the break area or outside the working area, Another
employee asked if union literature could be placed on 'the
bulletin board. Price said, "No" the board was company
property but when an employee suggested putting union
insignia ; on the personal toolboxes Price said, "Yeah, you
can put all you want on your own tool boxes."
446 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
James Arlan Tucker testified he has worked for Re-
spondent in excess of 3 years as a sheet metal mechanic.
He was leadman for the cockpit on the first shift under
Supervisor Bill Sawyer. In late May Tucker attended a
meeting of all leadmen and supervisors chaired by Art
Greggo, the general manager. Several of the supervisors
present were: Jim Price, Bill Sawyer, and Herb Schu-
mann . Leadman Louis Adams was also present. Greggo
informed the group of the union committee named in a
letter and stated that he wanted the leadmen and supervi-
sors to talk the Union down and ask the employees not
to sign cards. Greggo explained to the assembly that the
employees were treated good and did not need a union.
The meeting lasted approximately one-half hour and
ended at lunchtime. During lunch Jim Price came by
Tucker's bench and asked if he was involved with the
Union again. Tucker replied that he was not directly in-
volved but he did sign a card . Price told 'Tucker tht he
had belonged to unions in the past but they had never
done any good for him. Tucker informed Price that'
unions were a personal thing for the individual to decide
and that Tucker was not going to talk'the Union down.
That ended the conversation between Tucker and Price.
Scott Beaufait testified that he worked for Respondent
as a cabinetmaker on the second shift for approximately
1 year. He separated from employment sometime in the
fall of 1982. During May he and Chapman distributed
union literature in the break area during the break in the
presence of the shift employees including Supervisor Jim
Hodges. Some employees took the literature while others
left it laying on the break tables. At the conclusion of the
break Chapman and Beaufait left the area but shortly
they returned to pick up the remaining literature. How-
ever, after the break was over Hodges picked up the lit-
erature left in the breakroom and discarded some and
took some back to the production office.
In the course of his work functions Beaufait must sand
the cabinets and component parts such as doors. Small
items he sands while sitting on a stool at his workbench.
The larger items must stand free on the floor and he has
to stand to sand them. Usually each day he seeks help or
is sought after by other employees to help move large
pieces of cabinetry to the workbenches from other loca-
tions in the shop or from other departments in the facili-
ty. Each employee must check out his power tools, such
as a belt sander, router, or large orbital sander, from the
supply room leaving his own chip in place of the tool.
There are no "go-fers" employed to keep the employees
supplied with tools, materials, or the product. In contrast
to the sanding functions of the second shift, the first shift
had employees who sanded full time and did so outside
the woodshop in the open hangar area. Oftentimes a
cabinetmaker would finish construction of a cabinet and
immediately begin another leaving the finished cabinet to
be sanded by someone else.
Angel Lopez testified that he has worked for Re-
spondent in the fabric shop for 14 months. He was as-
signed to the third-shift under the supervision of Jim
Hodges. On June 9 he had a conversation with Hodges
in the front office just before lunch at 3:30 a.m. Hodges
stated that he had heard Lopez was passing out union
cards. Lopez replied that he was not passing out cards
although he had been asked to do so. Lopez said he de-
clined because he did not want to get involved. Hodges
went on to say that the people next door were having
worse times now than before when they were nonunion.
Hodges said the Union might get them 50 cents an hour
more but they could end up paying more for their
present benefits. They could make $20 a week more but
pay out $30 a week for the benefits. The entire conversa-
tion lasted about 5 minutes. The employees' benefits con-
sist of insurance, family insurance, uniforms, and a pen-
sion plan.
David Wayne Dey4 testified that he worked for Re-
spondent 6 months before the union activity began. In
May, Dey worked as a sheet metal installation mechanic
on the second shift under Supervisor Robert Roth. On
May 26, while working at his_ bench, Hodges approached
him and stated, "What's this I hear about you getting in-
volved with this union crap?" Dey did not respond.
Hodges said the IAM was involved in San Antonio and
look at what happened there. He stated that` there was a
strike and "Page" closed the doors, later hiring back
who they wanted to. Dey asked Hodges if he was sure it
was the IAM. Hodges replied it was the IAM. Hodges
stated that the Union would not do anything for the em-
ployees-they would only be paying dues and if the
Union came in, Page Avjet would just close the doors.
Dey responded that Respondent has a considerable in-
vestment in- the' facility and a lease with -the airport and
asking, "You think they would really close the doors?"
Hodges replied, "Well, maybe they wouldn't close the
doors, but you know, I just can't understand why you're
getting involved with the Union. We give you good ben-
efits and pay. We give you a job and there are plenty of
people out there who -want the job."' Dey, who was on
medication to tranquilize a heart condition, on viewing
his affidvit of June 15, added that Hodges said the Com-
pany would just find another hangar when he made a
reference to closing the doors. Also Hodges opined that
Dey was a good mechanic and he hated to see him get
involved in the Union. Dey testified that Hodges was ex-
pressing basically just his opinions, and not opinions as a
supervisor or in a supervisory capacity.
On June 1 Dey had a second conversation with Super-
visor Roth. Roth walked- up to Dey and asked, "How
was it going with the Union?" Dey did not respond but
Roth stated, "I don't understand why you're getting in-
volved with the Union. We've given you a good job and
good wages and so forth, and I really can't understand
why you'd want to get involved." Dey responded,
"Well, Bob, you know," but stopped because he did not
really want to talk about it. -
During the campaign Dey affixed union stickers to his
personal toolbox.' Someone on several occasions scraped
the stickers off his box and spray painted over others. He
reported the incidents to his leadman, Crombie, and Su-
pervisors Roth and Hodges. All three men expressed to
Dey that because of his union sympathies he could
expect such vandalism of his toolbox. Roth also stated
4 Dey kept notes of conversations with supervisors recording the sub-
stance, location, and time lapse of each The notes were referred to when
he gave his 'affidavit, then were destroyed
PAGE AVJET, INC. 447
that the vandalism was a childish thing to do and offered
to repaint Dey's toolbox, adding that if Respondent
found out who was responsible he would be terminated.
The Company could only do something if a person were
caught in the act. Other employees displayed union stick-
ers on there toolboxes and some of those boxes were de-
faced also.
On occasion Dey would be sent to the woodshop or
out into the hangar to sand cabinets with a 4- by 4-inch
wood block. Some weeks he could sand several days
whereas in other weeks he would not sand at all. In most
cases when he did sand he sat on a stool supplied to the
woodshop employees. Dey distributed union literature to
employees in the break area and parking lot. On a dozen
occasions Dey left literature in the break area after dis-
tributing to employees during break.
James R. Chapman testified that he worked as a cabi-
netmaker for Respondent during his employment from
January 11 to September 9. While employed he worked
on the second shift under the supervision of Schumann
and Adams. Chapman's probationary period of employ-
ment ended April 11 and he thereafter contacted the
IAM to begin an organizing campaign. Chapman signed
a card for the union organizer and received cards to so-
licit other employees. He succeeded in getting 25 em-
ployees to sign cards during lunchbreaks, during work-
breaks, and before and after shift times. Some employees
met Chapman at his residence and signed cards there.
Chapman was 1 among 12 employees who were solicit-
ing employee signatures. In addition to making solicita-
tions, Chapman distributed union literature and spon-
sored a union meeting at his residence. When he distrib-
uted literature in the break area he would lay it out on
the tables. On one occasion Hodges was present in the
break area and when the employees left to resume work,
including Chapman and Dey, Hodges picked up litera-
ture which had blown on the floor and been left on the
tables. Chapman and Dey watched Hodges pick up the
literature but did not see what he did with it. During the
campaign Chapman kept notes of events as they oc-
curred, the notes were used as a foundation for his affi-
davit given during the investigatory stage of this case.
Chapman also taped literature to his personal toolbox
almost daily and each day when he came in he found the
material removed from his box. One incident occurred
where someone had placed a legend, "Down with the
IAM," on his toolbox. Chapman was not aware of any
written or oral rules respecting distribution of literature
or solicitation of employees. In addition to the union lit-
erature and union solicitations the employees did have a
super bowl football pool that was solicited during work-
ing hours in the shop and the winners were posted on
the bulletin board. Chapman was not aware of any super-
visors who witnessed the football solicitations or saw the
returns on the bulletin board. The bulletin board was
also used for employees' sales notices of private proper-
ty.
Chapman attended the employee meeting held May 27
for the woodshop employees on the first and second
shifts. During the meeting Mike Belcher asked Price to
explain to the employees that union cards could be
signed on breaks, lunchtime, and before and after work
and that employees would not be fired for signing a
card. Price, in response, told the assembled employees
that they would not be fired for signing a union card and
the cards could be signed on breaks, during lunch, and
after work. Belcher asked, "Can we sign before work,
before hours?" and Price said, "No."
On July 25 Chapman was at home playing with a
punching bag and broke his ankle. He went to the hospi-
tal emergency room and was told a small bone was
broken but it could not be set until the swelling subsided.
An appointment was made to see a doctor the next day
at 1 p.m. The following morning at 9 a.m. Chapman
called Supervisor Adams and informed him of the
broken ankle and his doctor's appointment that day.
Adams told Chapman to come on in to work. Chapman
testified that he stated, "So you have work for me?"
Adams responded, "Yes, we have plenty of sanding. We
can find work for you." Chapman saw the doctor who
confirmed the broken bone and pulled ligaments. The
bone was set and the leg was casted with orders for
Chapman to stay off work for a week. Chapman felt he
could work since he could walk on the leg with nominal
pain. He was able to get from the doctor a release for 1
week's light duty. Chapman left the doctor's at 3:30 p.m.,
went home, and called in to his supervisor, Adams.
Adams reconfirmed the availability of sanding for Chap-
man and told him to report for work as scheduled on
July 27.
The next day Chapman took his doctor's release to his
leadman, Lee Coleman, and went to his workbench on
crutches and his ankle in a cast. Within several minutes
Coleman met Chapman at his workbench and summoned
him to the supervisor's office. Adams was in the office
and engaged Chapman in a general conversation about
the nature of his accident and the status of his ankle.
Adams received a phone call. After the calf terminated
he told Chapman that the caller was Greggo who said
there was no work for Chapman. Adams said, "If you
can't walk, you can't work. When you get the cast off,
come on back in and go to work." Chapman return ed to
the shop and prepared to go home after telling fellow
employees he would see them in 4 to 6 weeks. (The doc-
tor's prognosis for removal of the cast was 4 to 6 weeks.)
As he left the premises he saw Supervisor Roth who in-
quired of his ankle. Chapman asked Roth to call Chap-
man if any sanding work became available because he
would be able to come in and do it. Roth replied that he
would call and Chapman left the plant. Chapman dis-
carded the crutches the following day but did not inform
the Company of the fact. By the weeks' end he had
walked through the cast and 'had it replaced during the
second week. By the end of the third week Chapman de-
cided to cut the cast off himself so he could report to
work. Chapman did return to work about the third week
in August.
Chapman testified that his primary training when hired
was sanding. Every wood product that is worked on is
sanded, when repaired, cleaned, or installed. When not
sanding he is installing since he does not actually make
the cabinets. The ratio of sanding to installation is vari-
able. He may sand 1 day or 1 week then install cabinets
448 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
I day or spend 2 weeks installing. When sanding, Chap-
man sat on a stool as much as possible with the size and
shape of the particular piece needing work being the de-
ciding factor. ,There was not a stool for every employee
in the shop so there were times when a stool was not
available. In most cases the tools and the materials for
the shop employees were hand-carried into the shop by
the shop employees. Daily, employees were needed to
bring in large pieces to be worked on. Included in Chap-
man's work duties were reworking doors, panels, hard-
ware (such as hinges and pulls), adjusting fits, or repair-
ing pieces. Everything but actually building the piece is
within Chapman's job function. Much of the repair,
rework, and , adjusting is done inside the aircraft which
requires negotiating a ladder to get into the interior.
Other tasks are performed at the individual work-
benches. With regard to his light duty status, Chapman
testified, "The doctor left this up to me what I felt was
light duty. And I felt that I couldn't go up and down the
aircraft because of bumping into the furniture, scratching
it. It was awkward going up and down the stairs and
doing the repairs that I did. You would have to go up,
take parts, fit them, go back down to the woodshop, up
and down, up and down and I felt that I couldn't go up
the stairs and go into the plane at that time with the
cast."
Jim Price, nee Reese, testified that he has been produc-
tion manager for all shifts at Respondent's facility for 4
years. During his tenure there has not been any written
policy on distribution of materials to employees or solici-
tations of employees. An oral rule has always been in
effect, to wit; "During normal working hours there will
be no soliciting or passing of materials." Price explained
working hours to be those hours employees are on the
clock and working. Price told second- and first-shift
woodshop employees at the end of May in an assembly
that, during normal working hours, there will be no so-
liciting or passing of literature. He denied telling employ-
ees they could not solicit or pass out literature before or
after shift times. Price was not aware of any enforcement
of the oral rule either for distributions or solicitations.
He assumed some oral warnings had been given by de-
partment supervisors but did not know of any specific in-
stances of employees being disciplined for violation- of
the distribution or solicitation rule.
Price did not recall any meeting Greggo had with su-
pervisors and leadmen nor did he recall any conversation
with Tucker about the Union.
In the past, employees have been given "light duty" if
they are capable of performing their duties. There is,
however, no quantitative amount of their overall duties
they must be able to perform to qualify for light duty.
The determining factors are what are their duties as an
employee and what are they capable of doing with the
handicap. A sheet metal installer who normally works in
the aircraft broke his leg and was in a walking cast from
his knee to his foot. He was assigned to sheet metal fabri-
cation on a bench because he had those skills and capa-
bilities. One sheet metal leadman broke an arm and he
continued to function as leadman but without working
with tools. Price also recalled an avionics mechanic, who
normally strung wires throughout the aircraft, had
broken an arm, but his hand was free of the cast so he
was still able to function and string wires.
When Chapman returned to work with the doctor's re-
lease for light duty Louis Adams called Price. He told
Price that Chapman was on crutches and was incapable
of performing his duties. Price told Adams that he would
get back to him after conferring with Greggo. Price told
Greggo what Adams said about Chapman and Greggo
said he would take care of it. Greggo then called Adams
but Price was not present for the conversation. He later
heard that Chapman was sent home.
Price admitted that at times other classifications are
utilized for sanding when the time for which certain
work is scheduled is in jeopardy. The first shift had two
full-time sanders (hired as trainees) whereas the other
shifts used all employees for sanding. In July, several
days before Chapman broke his ankle, the two first-shift
sanders quit. Several days after Chapman broke his
ankle, replacements for the sanders were hired. Price did
not consider that Chapman could assume the duties of
one of the full-time sanders rather than hiring a new em-
ployee because he knew that Chapman was incapable of
performing sanding duties without both hands and both
feet free.
Arthur Greggo, director of production of 3-1/2 years,
testified that Respondent's solicitation and distribution
policy, as applied to employees, allowed employee solici-
tation and distribution on breaks, lunch, and other than
duty hours. Such policy has existed as long as he has
been employed. Employees, although not specifically in-
formed of the policy, would learn its provisions on com-
mitting some infraction. Greggo was not aware of any
employee solicitations in violation of the rule as stated,
including any employee raffles or football pools.
Greggo stated that Respondent's policy on "light
duty" for employees depended on the affliction and the
normal duties of the employees. In Chapman' s case light
duty was denied by Greggo after conversing with Super-
visor Adams and observing Chapman's condition.
Greggo asked Adams what Chapman's physical condi-
tion was and Adams said he was on crutches and had a
foot in a cast . Greggo asked, "Do we have any work for
him to do that he could perform?" Adams responded,
"No, it doesn't look like it because he has to use the
crutches even to stand." Greggo,then said, "Well, if it's
that bad, I wouldn't have any idea what you would be
able to have him do either, but reserve judgment until I
come back." Greggo then went to the shop area to view
Chapman's physical condition for himself. He did see
that Chapman was balancing himself on crutches to
stand. Greggo told Adams, "It doesn't look like he
would be able to do much for himself or for us." Adams
returned to Chapman presumably to tell him there was
no work for him. Greggo was not aware that Chapman's
light duty slip covered only 1 week.
Greggo recalled he did hold a meeting of 25 to 30
leadmen , not supervisors (with the exception of Jim
Price who may have attended), in late May which was
prompted by questions from leadmen concerning how
they could respond to inquiries for their opinions on
unions. Greggo told the group they should voice their
PAGE AVJET, INC. 449
opinions and not to hold back . If they felt for the Union
they should speak up. If they were against it they should
speak up . Greggo denied telling the group to discourage
employees from engaging in union activities or discour-
aging employees from signing union cards.
Louis Adams testified that he has been employed by
Respondent 2-1/2 years and for the last 5 months has su-
pervised the cabinet shop . The cabinet shop only oper-
ates on two shifts with 16 employees on the day shift and
6 employees on the second shift . Each employee is as-
signed a bench but some may share a bench when the
second shift overlaps. There are six stools in the shop to
be used at the benches. The supply room is on the oppo-
site side of the hangar approximately one-sixteenth of a
mile distant. All tools must be returned each shift to the
supply room. Materials are housed in the basement with
access via stairs . The woodshop had four classifications:
trainee and cabinetmaker A, B, and C. Chapman was a
trainee. Trainees do everything but make the cabinets,
but on occasion may be assigned to help a cabinetmaker
construct the cabinet. Generally trainees install the doors
and hardware on finished cabinets and sand the entire
piece.
Adams stated that Chapman called on Monday in late
July to inform him that he had injured his foot and was
going to the doctor . Chapman said he would be in the
next day . Adams told Chapman to come in the next day.
Adams could not recall any discussion of availability of
work for Chapman in some injured condition . The fol-
lowing day Chapman did come in on crutches and his
foot in a cast . Adams saw his doctor 's release for light
duty, but did not think Chapman was stable enough to
work . He informed Price of Chapman's condition and
Price in turn contacted Greggo. Greggo consulted with
Adams who explained that in Champan's condition he
could not handle any of the work . It was decided that
there was no work for Chapman in his condition and
Adams informed Chapman of that fact . Chapman said,
"Fine," and left the facility. Adams did not receive any
interim reports from Chapman on his physical condition.
About 3 weeks later Chapman did report back to work
and resumed ' his duties in the woodshop.
With regard to the full-time sanders, Adams testified
that Robert Hevia was the only one in July. He was on
the first shift . There were no full-time sanders on the
other shifts . In late July, before Chapman broke his
ankle, Hevia walked off the job, not to return. (Respond-
ent's counsel supplied 7-29-82 as the date Hevia walked
off the job and quit.)
James Hodges, third-shift installation supervisor , testi-
fied that in May after a break in the employees ' break-
room he picked up some union literature left on the
tables and floor . He laid the union literature on a table
adjacent to the welding shop , Hodges denied ever
having a conversation with David Dey about union ac-
tivities . Hodges did converse with another employee,
Jim Wickum , in late May while informing the employee
of his progression from probationary to regular employee
and the amount of his pay raise . The conversation took
place in the production office. Wickum asked if signing a
card was the same as voting for the Union and wanted
to know if he could get his card returned. Hodges pro-
fessed ignorance of the facts and stated that he could not
answer him. Wickum stated, "Well, I understand that if
we go union they are going to close this plant down like
they did in San Antonio ." Hodges replied that a multi-
million dollar corporation is not going to close down for
a union . Wickum asked about losing his benefits . Hodges
stated that he foresaw no loss of benefits for employees
and then suggested that he talk to the employees next
door who were represented by a union . Hodges opined
that the employees next door could tell someone more
about a union than he could . In Hodges ' memory the
San Antonio plant had never closed down for any
reason.
Hodges did not discuss loss of benefits if the Union
came in with Angel Lopez. He did discuss the solicita-
tion rule with Lopez . An employee reported to Hodges
that Lopez was soliciting card signatures during work-
time . Hodges informed Lopez of the report and admon-
ished Lopez about solicitations during work . He told
Lopez that signatures were only to be solicited during
break and lunch hour , unless it is done somewhere else,
not during work hours . Lopez repeated to Hodges the
rumor that the plant would close if the Union came in.
Hodges stated that such a rumor was unfounded and
suggested that , Lopez talk to the employees next door to
learn about the union situation.
There was an incident of someone defacing David
Dey's toolbox apparently on the third shift . Dey report-
ed the incident to Hodges, who asked Dey if he expect-
ed Hodges to investigate the incident . Dey responded,
"No, I just want to make it official that I am notifying
you.,,
Herbert Schumann , supervisor of the upholstery shop,
testified that he never questioned an employee about the
union letter naming the plant employees as a union com-
mittee. In fact he had not seen the letter until preparing
to testify in the trial of this case albeit he had heard of its
existence.
Robert Roth , second-shift supervisor , testified that he
did not question employee Dey about his union involve-
ment at any time . He did receive a complaint from Dey
about someone defacing his toolbox by scraping stickers
off the box. Dey asked Roth what he was going to do
about it. Roth asked if Dey knew who did it. Dey did
not. Roth said if the Company found someone doing
such it would discipline them. On a second occasion Dey
reported that someone had spray painted over the union
stickers on his toolbox . Dey' did not know who had
spray painted his box . Roth offered to repair Dey 's tool-
box but Dey declined the offer preferring to do it him-
self. In an unrelated incident in June someone put glue in
the toolbox locks of some 'six to eight employees. The
Company did not know who had done this , but the
Company gave the people new locks to replace those
damaged . Roth denied that he told Dey that what he
was doing was screwing up other peoples' jobs by mess-
ing with the Union . Roth did recall, however , that lead-
man Crombie, at the time Dey was reporting the vandal-
ism to Roth, did make ' such a statement to Dey.
450 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Analysis and Conclusions
The General Counsel had offered evidence to prove
complaint allegations of interference, interrogation,
threats, impression of surveillance, promulgation of an
invalid no-solicitation/no-distribution rule, and a dis-
criminatory discipline followed by a discriminatory re-
fusal of light duty work.
The burden of proof rests on the General Counsel to
establish the allegations of her complaint by a preponder-
ance of the evidence. This burden never shifts to the Re-
spondent and no onus is imposed on the Respondent to
disprove any of the allegations pleaded in the complaint.
The General Counsel must sustain her burden of proof
with affirmative evidence and the discrediting of any of
Respondents' evidence does not, without more, consti-
tute affirmative evidence to support the General Coun-
sel's obligation to prove her case.
With regard to the alleged 8(a)(1) violations, the test is
whether Respondent engaged in conduct which, it may
reasonably be said, tends to interfere with the free exer-
cise of employee rights under the Act. Therefore not all
interrogations or interference are violative. They must be
coercive of the employees or uttered under circum-
stances that would induce fear of reprisal among employ-
ees.
The alleged 8(a)(1) activity herein occurred within a 2-
week period and was not extensive since only a half
dozen employees were affected out of a total work force
of 275. Although not contolling the ratio of employees is
a factor to consider when inferring animus on the part of
Respondent.
An early incident in the campaign was the meeting of
leadmen called by General Manager Greggo as a result
of questions put to him from several leadmen. Some
leadmen were seeking guidance in what they could or
could not do. As Tucker recalled, Greggo explained to
the group why he thought the employees did not need a
union, based in part on the good working conditions al-
ready in place. Also Greggo told the group to talk the
Union down and ask employees to sign union cards.
Greggo recalled telling the leadmen to express their
opinions one way or the other and not to hold back. Nei-
ther witness could recall exactly what was said nor was
their recall of the one-half hour meeting substantial. The
substance of the remarks lies somewhere between the
recall of the two witnesses. Tucker's testimony, standing
alone, does not unequivocally show a violation on the
part of Greggo. The General Counsel has alleged "in-
structions to employees and supervisors" but the evi-
dence shows that only leadmen were in attendance with
Production Manager Price. Respondent has the right to
campaign among employees (leadmen) just as the union
sympathizers do and make known its position of opposi-
tion to the union organizing. This would include its posi-
tion of "talking the Union down" and "asking employees
not to sign union cards" particularly if neither were initi-
ated in a coercive manner. There is no evidence to sug-
gest coercion nor is the evidence substantial enough to
sustain the allegation as framed. In my view, Greggo's
remarks to the leadmen in Price's presence were nothing
more than Respondent letting employees know it was
not in favor of union organizing and was hopeful of
some support among employees. I conclude that Re-
spondent did not instruct its supervisors and leadmen to
tell other employees not to sign union cards in a manner
that would be violative of the Act.
In another early incident, the General Counsel's wit-
nesses testified, without contradiction, that Supervisor
Hodges on one occasion, after an employee break ended
in the breakroom, picked up the union literature which
was scattered on the floor and left on the tables. The
witnesses agreed that the distribution procedure was to
place the literature on tables for the employees to take
and read if they so desired. The witnesses further agreed
that during breaks they freely distributed literature with-
out incident. Hodges admitted that on the one occasion
he did pick up the union literature and place it on a table
outside the break area. The General Counsel alleges the
single incident to be interference with employees' rights,
but employees only have the right to engage in activities
in support of their individual union preferences. Employ-
ees do not have the right to clutter break areas with
union literature. It cannot be gainsaid that the employees
engaged in the distribution, on reflection, decided to
return and collect the abandoned literature themselves
but Hodges simply beat them to it. The only differences
in the two attempts was the final depository of the litera-
ture. I fail to see any Section 7 rights attached to the
abandoned literature or any interference with employees'
rights guaranteed by Section 7. I therefore conclude and
find that Respondent had not violated the Act by Super-
visor Hodges' cleaning up the break area at the conclu-
sion of an employee break. In my view, the union litera-
ture in the break area assumes the same character as any
other material once the break has ended and employees
have returned to work.
The General Counsel had alleged five counts of coer-
cive interrogation by admitted supervisors-one each by
Price, Roth, and Schumann and two for Hodges. Each
supervisor denied asking any employees about their
union activities of the union activities of other employ-
ees. Hodges also is alleged to have made two threats to
employees and to have given one employee the impres-
sion that he was under surveillance.
Dey, who kept notes during the campaign, appeared
forthright in his testimony appearing only to recall the
events as they happened. Dey's characterizations of the
conversations as opinions of fellow employees rather
than statements of supervisors is somewhat instructive of
his purpose for testifying. His testimony is credible and
shows, indeed, that the Union was a topic of discussion
among supervisors and employees particularly if the em-
ployee was willing to engage in the discussion as was
Dey, His testimony also suggests that employees were
not obliged to discuss the Union if they chose not to.
Dey was a known union adherent, as one of six in-plant
committeemen, so he was a natural target for discussion.
Although the free atmosphere of discussion usually sug-
gest the lack of coercion and, therefore, inclusive inter-
rogation may not be violative, the current status of
Board law (by which I am bound) dictates a finding of a
violation. In addition the portions of the conversation
dealing with "closing the doors" or "just finding another
PAGE AVJET, INC. 451
hangar" constitute threats to employees in reprisal for
sympathizing with the Union, Accordingly, I conclude
and find that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the
Act through its Supervisor Jim Hodges.
Dey's conversation with Roth on June 1 is indicative
of the nature of the union discussions which took place
between supervisors and certain employees. Dey was an
admitted union supporter and obviously friendly with his
supervisors. Roth's single question, "How's it going with
the Union?" hardly attains the level of interrogation re-
quired to pass the 8(a)(1) test. Moreover, Dey was fully
prepared to discuss the matter with Roth but for some
reason stopped short in his response . Roth, sensing Dey's
lack of enthusiasm at the time, said no more . I cannot
conclude or find, on this record, that Roth interrogated
Dey in violation of the Act.
The General Counsel's evidence of the June 9 conver-
sation between Lopez and Hodges is something less than
substantial. Also, Hodges credibly testified that his query
of Lopez was prompted by a report from an employee of
Lopez' solicitations, during worktime. In spite of Lopez'
denial of any solicitations, the circumstance is not one of
surveillance or the impression thereof. Worktime is for
work and supervisors can require employees to follow
the work rules and can discipline employees for infrac-
tions. Here there was nothing more than an oral warning
which apparently was sufficient. With regard to the al-
leged threat of loss of benefits, if the conversation oc-
curred exactly as Lopez testified, I would not find the
substance coercive. Lopez freely engaged in the conver-
sation and obviously prompted the remarks made by
Hodges. However, Lopez' reporting of the conversation
is conveniently one sided, either through lack of recall or
by design. In any event, the conversation is too incom-
plete to conclude or find that Hodges made a threat of
loss of benefits to Lopez. Therefore I conclude and find
that Respondent did not overstep the bounds of conver-
sation through Supervisor Hodges on June 9.
Niedrich's recall of his conversation with Schumann
specifically negates any interrogation of Niedrich about
the union letter of May 23. Niedrich's testimony does
show that following an unsolicited explanation of the let-
ter's circulation in the plant, which included the state-
ment that some employees had brought the letter to Nei-
drich's workbench during worktime, Schumann did in-
quire "who." Niedrich's admission to Schumann that em-
ployees had engaged in union business with Niedrich
during worktime was sufficient to allow Schumann to
make the inquiry with impunity. The fact that, Niedrich
did not respond and Schumann did not press the issue
evinces Schumann's lack of illegal concern for the cir-
cumstances. If he was intent on coercion of Niedrich, he
would' have continued the conversation about the letter
and its circulation. Schumann's later reference to a party
and Niedrich's response that it is not a union party places
the injection of "union characterization" on Niedrich's
shoulders. Schumann cannot be held accountable for
Niedrich's language, notwithstanding, the two may be
referencing the same party. I conclude and find, based
on the, above, that Respondent did not unlawfully inter-
rogate employee Niedrich,
Tucker's recall of the Greggo meeting with leadmen
included an almost immediate question from Price at
lunchtime. Price asked if Tucker was involved with the
Union again. Tucker told Price that he was not directly
involved but he did sign a union card. Tucker ended the
conversation by telling Price that Tucker was not going
to talk the Union down as suggested by Greggo. Price
had no recall of any such conversation with Tucker. In
my view, Price's reference to Tucker's union involve-
ment "again" negates any fear of reprisal in Tucker
making the question something other than coercive, par-
ticularly, where there is a lack of any evidence to show
an attempt ' at coercion during Tucker's first union in-
volvement. The implication thus is that employees are
free to engage in union activity and on more than one
occasion. I am, however, bound by the Board law which
views Price's remarks as violative. I am therefore con-
strained to, and do, conclude and find that Respondent,
through Supervisor Price, violated the Act, as alleged.
The General Counsel alleged two counts of interfer-
ence, one each by Hodges and Roth, involving the van-
dalism of Dey's toolbox and buttressed by Respondent's
stated position on the incidents, to wit, an employee can
expect such vandalism did occur to Dey's and other em-
ployee's toolboxes. There is no evidence, however, to
identify the perpetrator or to suggest that he was acting
in behalf of Respondent, i.e., there is no evidence of
agency of the perpetrator or of the principal of Respond-
ent. The General Counsel's argumentative reference to
the remarks attributed to Hodges and Roth are explained
by the record as a whole. Roth credibly testified that
leadman Crombie did make such a' disparaging remark to
Dey in Roth's presence and possibly in Hodge 's pres-
ence . Dey ' admitted that Hodges offered to investigate
the incident if Dey could supply any facts to begin. Dey
could not. I place no emphasis on the failure of either su-
pervisor to affirmatively denounce the remark. Neither
do I find that silence on the part of the supervisors is
tantamount to ratification of the remark to the point that
Respondent is liable for' such remark. All witnesses
agreed that both Hodges and Roth were sympathetic to
the victims of the vandalism offering to redress the
wrong by refurbishing, the toolboxes. As Roth stated to
Dey, "It was a childish'thing to do." Respondent did all
it could do in the circumstance since no employee could
be identified as the culprit and ultimately disciplined for
their conduct. I therefore conclude and find that the
General Counsel has failed to sustain her burden of proof
on complaint paragraphs 6,(g) and 8(b).
All witnesses agree ; that Respondent did not have a
written no-distribution%o: ssolicitation rule, did have an
oral rule which employees may or may not have been
aware of, and, had not issued any formal discipline for
any infractions of the' oral rule. Both before and after
promulgation of the oral rule by Price, employees freely
solicited and distributed, on company premises before and
after shift, during lunchtime, and while on workbreaks in
the plant. In response to questions from employess in an
assembly, Price explained the Respondent's no-
distribution/no-solicitation rule. Witness Price stated the
rule thusly, "During normal working hours there will be
452 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
no soliciting or passing of materials ." He explained (for
the record) working hours to be those hours employees
are on the clock and working . Price, when recalling the
existence of the rule, stated that normal working hours
to him did not include break and lunch periods . Albeit
no employee was disciplined for soliciting before or after
work and an explanation of normal working hours was
given to the employees assembled from the woodshop,
not all employees were made aware of the explanation.
Price said the rule had been in existence for his 4 years
of employment , apparently without any prior explana-
tion, and Greggo stated that employees would become
aware of the rule when they violated it . In neither case is
the Board 's law on no-solicitation/no-distribution rules
satisfied .5 An ambiguity exists in Respondent's stated
rule which technically is a violation in spite -of the lack
of any formal enforcement . As Price indicated there may
have been oral warnings given to employees that he is
not aware of. Accordingly, I conclude and find that Re-
spondent promulgated an overly broad no-solicitation
rule at a time when employees were engaged in exercis-
ing their Section 7 rights and in violation of Section
8(a)(1) of the Act.
Respondent, at trial and on the record, admitted the
allegations of paragraph 11(a) and the concluding para-
graphs following which is an admission to an unfair
labor practice. Accordingly, I conclude and find that Re-
spondent, by issuing a written warning to James R.
Chapman on May 26, has violated the Act and I shall
order a remedy.
The General Counsel alleges and contends that James
Chapman was discriminatorily refused light duty work
after an injury unrelated to work. Admittedly, Respond-
ent refused him the light duty work but argues that its
motivation was lawful. The record evidence established
that Respondent does not allow employees with injuries
to work on "light duty" within their classification and
proven abilities. It was uncontroverted that several em-
ployees, one with a broken leg in a cast and the other
with an arm in a cast, were given work to do while in-
jured. The employee with the broken leg could not per-
form as a sheet metal installer but was given sheet metal
fabrication work which was within his skills and physical
capabilities. The employee with the broken arm was able
to perform his normal functions of wiring because his
hand was outside the cast.
Only in Chapman's case was the nature of the injury
and treatment detailed in the record. Chapman had a
broken bone in his ankle which required a cast. The
doctor wanted Chapman to stay off work at least 1 week
but Chapman persuaded the doctor to agree to "light
duty" work with no specifics. Chapman explained the
light duty as whatever he felt he was capable of doing,
i.e., the doctor left the type of light duty up to Chapman.
Such an arrangement with the doctor would be fine if
Chapman in turn could assign himself to work functions
but that he does not do. Throughout his testimony Chap-
man down played the injury to his ankle ("I water skied,
walked through the cast in a week, threw away the
crutches, and chiseled the cast off myself") and claimed
5 TRW, Inc., 257 NLRB 442 (1981)
he could have performed sanding functions . In fact
Chapman stated that sanding would have been the only
work he could have done because his other functions re-
quired him to go up and down stairs and carry pieces of
furniture. Notwithstanding Chapman's current appraisals
of his injury and his ability to do at least part of his usual
job functions, he reported for work on crutches and with
his ankle in a cast . He was told by supervision that he
did not appear to be in a stable enough condition to per-
form any work in the woodshop . Chapman did not con-
test the determination but rather left the premises telling
coworkers he would see them in 3 to 6 weeks. In my
view, Chapman's appearance at the plant in his condition
was nothing more than a token appearance . I find Chap-
man's failure to notify Respondent of any change in his
physical condition, particularly the loss of the crutches,
instructive of his true desires and abilities.
The General Counsel argues vehemently that Re-
spondent had sanding work to be done in the woodshop
which may require extra help from other departments.
The evidence, however, does not establish Respondent's
need for extra help on sanding despite the incomplete
testimony of one full -time sander walking off the job
around the time Chapman reported for light duty work.
Moreover the evidence does not establish , other than
Chapman's self-serving statements long after the injury
healed, that Chapman could indeed perform even the
sanding functions . The record description of a cabinet-
maker trainee's functions from supervisors and Chapman
himself do not tend to sustain the General Counsel's con-
tention that Chapman was ready, willing, and able to
work in the woodshop . Just as Respondent throught, the
doctor originally did not think Chapman should return
to work immediately. When Chapman did report back
for work, without cast or crutches, about 3-weeks later,
he was in fact put back to work.
The General Counsel 's arguments that Hodges, when
injured, was allowed to work without being told , "if you
cannot walk, you cannot work ," and that a wireman was
allowed to work with his arm in a cast and he had addi-
tional skills within his usual job functions that could be
utilized . The wireman's cast was such that his hand was
not immobilized ; therefore, he could perform his usual
functions with both hands.
Even in the face of admitted animus, the General
Counsel's case of discrimination must be supported by an
alleged discriminatee maintaining his prior work status.
When, as here, an , alleged discriminatee , through his own
conduct, had placed himself outside his usual work status
the conduct of the employer is less of a moving factor.
That is to say, before the General Counsel can claim a
discriminatory motive in refusing light duty work, the in-
ability of the discriminatee to work must be Respond-
ent's own doing . If the discriminatee has by his own con-
duct caused his inability to perform, then Respondent
cannot be held accountable . If the evidence showed' that
employees in the same condition as Chapman in the past
were found other work which they could do with their
injury then Respondent would have the liability for
Chapman. Here, however , the record evidence shows
clearly that any "light duty" for injured employees must
PAGE AVJET, INC. 453
be performed within their usual work functions. I con-
clude and fmd that Respondent has not violated the Act
by refusing "light duty" work to James R. Chapman. To
hold otherwise would, contrary to the statute, place the
alleged discriminatee in a better position than he held
prior to Respondent's suspected conduct.
The General Counsel's allegation of paragraph 9 of the
complaint found no support among the admitted evi-
dence in the record and will therefore be dismissed.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. By maintaining a no-solicitation/no-distribution rule
which prohibits employees from engaging in oral solici-
tations and distributions on company property during
working hours, Respondent has interfered with, coerced,
and restrained its employees in the exercise of their Sec-
tion 7 rights in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
2. Respondent has, through Supervisors Jim Price and
James Hodges, interrogated its employees in violation of
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
3. Respondent has, through Supervisor James Hodges,
threatened employees with closure of the plant if the
Union were successful in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of
the Act.
4. Respondent has discriminated against James R.
Chapman in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the
Act by issuing a written warning to him on May 26.
REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in cer-
tain unfair labor practices, I fmd it necessary to order the
Respondent to cease and desist therefrom and to take
certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the poli-
cies of the Act.
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and
on the entire record, I issue the following recommend-
ed6
ORDER
The Respondent, Page Avjet, Incorporated, Orlando,
Florida, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Maintaining, giving effect to, or enforcing its oral
no-solicitation/no-distribution rule as promulgated herein
which forbids employees from engaging in union solicita-
tions and distributions on company property during
working hours.
(b) Interrogating its employees about their union sym-
pathies or those of other employees.
(c) Threatening employees with plant closure in the
event the Union is successful in representing its employ-
ees.
(d) Issuing disciplinary warnings to its employees as a
reprisal for their engaging in activities on behalf of the
Union.
8 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.
(e) In any like or related manner interfering with, re-
straining, or coercing employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to
effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Rescind the no-solicitation/no-distribution rule now
existing to the extent that such rule prohibits union solic-
itation and distributions by employees on company prop-
erty during working hours.
(b) Remove from its files any reference to the written
warning issued to James R. Chapman on May 26 and
notify him that this has been done.
(c) Preserve and, on request, make available to the
Board or its agents for examination and copying, all pay-
roll records, social security payment records, timecards,
personnel records and reports, and all other records nec-
essary to analyze the amount of backpay due under the
terms of this Order.
(d) Post at its facility in Orlando, Florida, copies of
the attached notice marked "Appendix."T Copies of the
notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for
Region 12, after being signed by the Respondent's au-
thorized representative, shall be posted by the Respond-
ent immediately upon receipt and maintained for 60 con-
secutive days in conspicuous places including all places
where notices to employees are customarily posted. Rea-
sonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to ensure
that the notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by
any other material.
(e) Notify the Regional Director in writing within 20
days from the date of this Order what steps the Re-
spondent has taken to comply.
IT IS ALSO ORDERED that the complaint be dismissed
insofar as it alleges violations of the Act not specifically
found.
7 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 Nation-
al 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
The National Labor Relations Board has found that we
violated the National Labor Relations Act and has or-
dered us to post and abide by this notice.
WE WILL NOT prohibit union solicitations and union
distributions among our employees on company property
during working hours.
WE WILL NOT interrogate our employees about their
union sympathies or desires.
WE WILL NOT threaten our employees with closure of
the plant if the Union is successful.
WE WILL NOT issue written warnings to our employ-
ees because they have a desire to support the Union.
454 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere WE WILL remove from the company files any refer-
with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of ence to the written warning issued to James R. Chapman
their rights guaranteed under Section 7 of the Act . on May 26, 1982.
PAGE AVJET, INCORPORATED