Predicasts, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 8, 1984

270 N.L.R.B. 1117 (N.L.R.B. 1984)

PREDICASTS, INC.
Predicasts, Inc. and The Newspaper Guild, Local 1,
AFL-CIO, CLC and Pauline Kahoun and Per-
sonnel Committee of Predicasts Inc., Party in
Interest. Cases 8-CA-16159-2 and 8-CA-
16358
8 June 1984
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN DOTSON AND MEMBERS
ZIMMERMAN AND HUNTER
On 6 December 1983 Administrative Law Judge
Walter J. Alprin issued the attached decision. The
Respondent filed exceptions and a supporting
memorandum and the General Counsel filed a re-
sponse.
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, memorandum,
and response and has decided to affirm the judge's
rulings, findings, and conclusions and to adopt the
recommended Order as modified.
The Respondent excepts only to paragraph l(a)
of the judge's Order. In its supporting memoran-
dum, the Respondent states that its objection re-
lates to the order provision requiring the Respond-
ent to permit employees to post literature on com-
pany bulletin boards. That requirement is unduly
broad, the Respondent argues, because it would
prevent the Respondent from placing legitimate,
nondiscriminatory restrictions on the use of its bul-
letin boards. Accordingly, the Respondent has sub-
mitted proposed modifications to the Order and at-
tached notice to employees. The General Counsel
"takes no position with regard to Respondent's ex-
ceptions and argument thereon but does not oppose
the proposed modifications."
We find merit in the Respondent's exception to
the breadth of the bulletin board requirement.
However, we have adopted our own modifications
to the Order and attached notice to reflect more
precisely the violations found and the remedial
relief we deem appropriate for those violations. I In
other respects the judge's findings and Order and
notice are adopted pro forma absent exceptions.
I Specfically, we have divided par. I(a) of the Order into two para-
graphs. Our new par. 1(a) proscribes restrictions on employee distribu-
tions of protected literature during nonworking time in nonworking areas
or in working areas where other distributions are permitted. Our new
par. I(b) proscribes unlawfully motivated or discriminatorily applied re-
strictions on employee postings of protected literature on company bulle-
tin boards. The attached notice has been modified accordingly.
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board adopts the
recommended Order of the administrative law
judge as modified below and orders that the Re-
spondent, Predicasts, Inc., Cincinnati, Ohio, its offi-
cers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the
action set forth in the Order as modified.
1. Substitute the following for paragraph l(a).
"(a) Refusing to permit employees to distribute
union literature or other concerted, protected liter-
ature during working time in nonworking areas or
in working areas where other distributions are per-
mitted."
2. Insert the following as paragraph 1(b) and re-
letter the subsequent paragraphs.
"(b) For unlawfully discriminatory reasons or in
an unlawfully discriminatory manner prohibiting
employees from posting on the Company's bulletin
boards union literature or other protected, concert-
ed literature."
3. Substitute the attached notice for that of the
administrative law judge.
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, for unlawfully discriminatory
reasons or in an unlawfully discriminatory manner,
prohibit employees from posting on the Company's
bulletin boards union literature or other concerted,
protected literature.
WE WILL NOT promise increases in budgets for
wages, or increased wages in order to induce em-
ployees to withhold their support from any labor
organization.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner
interfere with, restrain, or coerce you in the exer-
cise of the rights guaranteed you by Section 7 of
the Act.
WE WILL disestablish the Personnel Committee
as representative of any of our employees for the
purpose of dealing with us, and WE WILL NOT
dominate, assist, or interfere with the administra-
tion of any labor organization of our employees,
nor will we give support to it.
270 NLRB No. 170
1117
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
WE WILL permit employees to distribute union
literature or other concerted protected literature
during working time in nonworking areas or in
working areas where other distributions are permit-
ted.
PREDICASTS, INC.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
WALTER J. ALPRIN, Administrative Law Judge.
Charges in these cases were filed on November 5 and
December 21, 1982. The complaint was issued on De-
cember 29, and hearing was held on April 27 and 28,
1983, at Cincinnati, Ohio.
On the entire record, including my observation of the
demeanor of the witnesses, and after due consideration of
the briefs filed by the General Counsel and Respondent,
I make the following
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. JURISDICTION AND BACKGROUND
Respondent is an informational publisher with princi-
pal facilities at Cincinnati, Ohio. It admits, and I find,
that it is an employer engaged in commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act, and that
the Newspaper Guild, Local 1, AFL-CIO-CLC (the
Union) is a labor organization within the meaning of Sec-
tion 2(5) of the Act.
The Union began an organization campaign among
Respondent's employees in the spring of 1982.1 Formal
notification of the campaign naming the employees in-
volved was given to Respondent by letter dated June 14.
It is alleged that Respondent thereafter violated the Act
by (a) prohibiting use of bulletin boards, (b) interfering
with and prohibiting the distribution of union material;
(c) forbidding solicitation; (d) promising an increased
budget for wages; (e) promising pay increases to employ-
ees withholding support from a labor organization; and
(f) interfering with the administration of a labor organi-
zation.
II. ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Denying Access to Bulletin Boards
1. The facts
Respondent maintains five bulletin boards in its facili-
ties, one in the employee lounge and four at other loca-
tions, opposite coffee machines. Prior to September, Re-
spondent permitted its employees full access to the bulle-
tin boards, which were used for posting all types of an-
nouncements, witticisms, and items of general interest,
including occasional items critical or disrespectful of Re-
spondent or its management. On July 29, a clipping from
the Wall Street Journal, reporting the acquisition by Re-
spondent's parent corporation of another subsidiary at a
I All dates are in 1982 unles otherwise specified.
cost of $14.5 million, was posted on one of the bulletin
boards not in the employee lounge, with a written com-
ment to the effect that it was a lot of money for the pur-
chase while Respondent paid its current employees so
little. In the latter part of September there were several
items posted by employees on bulletin boards referring
to the discharge of a manager believed to be prounion.
One statement read:
A manager has now been sacrificed to the golden
calf, called "corporate imperialism." He has been
used to make all employees aware of the fact that
personal viewpoints are not welcome in this compa-
ny, that anyone can be fired for mere suspicion of
union sympathy. The "corporate entity" expects all
employees to be overtaken with fear, to follow
company line. Will you stand for this? WILL YOU
BE NEXT?
Another statement commented:
Of course, the best way to ride out this nasty reces-
sion appears to be eliminating those dangerous man-
agement types whose products make money (and
sometimes carry the company out of loss). Hi ho.
A third statement announced:
COMPANY PARTYIIII
Come celebrate the axing of Poulson.
Come have a drink with the Axemen.
Eat, Drink, Be Merry,
For You May Be Next.
In a lighter mode, another posting asks:
Q. How many Predi's does it take to change a
lite bulb?
A. Two. One to screw in the bulb, and one to
fire anyone who sees the light.
Finally, on a company-posted notice of a party to be
held on Friday, September 24, a handwritten note was
added, stating: "Boycott-what is there to celebrate?"
In response to the above postings, Respondent Vice
President Robert Baumgartner posted the following
notice:
I believe in free expression of ideas and I don't
believe in censoring materials which appear on this
bulletin board. However, I don't think it serves any
of us well to post the kind of vitriolic comments on
this board which had appeared recently.
Recent changes were made to facilitate manage-
ment to management practices. This company will
survive only if we can pull ourselves together and
meet the problems imposed by this economy and
the competitive business environment we all face.
Being pro-union is not necessarily anti-Predicast.
However, promoting divisiveness for whatever
reason is.
I ask those people who have posted the notices in
question to remove them. I also request that no
1118
PREDICASTS, INC.
company notices be defaced. You may comment in
a note attached to the company notice if you wish.
I hope that we can work out a reasonable solution
which gives both management and pro-union people
the right of free expression.
On September 28, at the regular quarterly meeting
with employees, Richard Harris, Respondent's president,
announced a new rule for bulletin board usage. Only of-
ficial business and items concerning company matters
could be posted on the boards, except that the board in
the employee lounge could be used for classified ads.
Material either pro- or antiunion was not to be posted.
The following day Respondent issued a written notice
that "In view of recent developments in the law, we
have revised our no solicitation/no distribution rule. The
new rule, which is described below, replaces the rule
which is currently published in the Employee Hand-
book." The manual contained no rule regarding use of
bulletin boards. The new rule, as pertinent, provides that
"the posting of notices, signs, or written materials of any
kind on the Company's premises is prohibited unless au-
thorized in writing by the Employee Relations Depart-
ment." It also provides that "Employees may post classi-
fied ads on the bulletin board in the employees lounge,
i.e., want ads, for sale ads."
2. Discussion
Promulgation of a rule, though otherwise valid on its
face, solely to curtail union activity and not for any le-
gitimate business purpose, constitutes an unfair labor
practice in violation of Section 8(aXl) of the Act. Dutch
Boy, Inc., 262 NLRB 4, 6 (1982). Though the postings on
the bulletin boards made no direct mention of the
Union's organization campaign, both Respondent's vice
president and president made clear that their reaction to
the postings was based on an assumed prounion content
to the items. Respondent presented no evidence of a "le-
gitimate business purpose" in restricting use of the bulle-
tin boards, which were all in nonwork areas such as the
employee lounge or opposite from coffee machines,
beyond a broad but unsubstantiated statement that em-
ployees might spend worktime reading notices on the
bulletin boards. The purpose of Respondent in restricting
the previously free use of the bulletin boards was there-
fore to retaliate for the prior use and to prohibit future
use in exercising protected rights to comment regarding
wages or working conditions.
Respondent urges that an employer has a right to ex-
clusive use of its bulletin boards, citing Container Corp.
of America, 244 NLRB 318, 321 (1979). Examination of
that decision, however, both at 318 fn. 2 and 321, reveals
that the Board has recognized that while no statutory
right exists permitting employee or union use of employ-
er bulletin boards, the past practices of the employer in
permitting such use extends protection of the Act to the
practice, so long as the items posted are not so "egre-
gious" or deliberately or recklessly untruthful as to lose
the protection. Protection of the Act was not lost here
and the restriction by Respondent against use of bulletin
boards was a reaction to and countermeasure against the
union campaign. It was therefore a violation of the Act.
Continental Kitchen Corp., 246 NLRB 611, 613 (1979).
B. Interfering with Distribution of Union Flyer
i. Facts
For some time prior to October, the only rule main-
tained by Respondent as to solicitation of employees was
that published in the employee manual, dealing exclu-
sively with charitable collections and providing that such
"soliciting is not permitted in our plant."
Respondent's workday is from 8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.
On the evening of September 27, about 7:30 p.m., a
union flyer was distributed by some employees, by plac-
ing same on each employee's desk. About 7:30 or 7:45
a.m., well prior to the start of the workday the next
morning, Respondent caused some, if not all these, flyers
to be removed. Later that day, September 28, President
Harris orally announced a new "distribution" policy.
Employees testified that such announcement was that
they were not permitted to distribute any literature on
company premises at any time, whether pro- or antiunion
and whether or not the employees were working; that
any such distribution required permission; and that the
reason for the rule was that such materials were read on
company time.
The following day, September 29, Respondent posted
a written notice of a no-solicitation and no-distribution
rule, in part as follows:
2. Employees shall not distribute any kind of no-
tices, circulars, or written materials at any time they
are expected to be working, and there shall be no
littering on the premises of the Company. Further-
more, the posting of notices, signs, or written mate-
rials of any kind on the Company's premises is pro-
hibited unless authorized in writing by the Employ-
ee Relations Department.
Employees testified that they were unsure whether the
written rule countermanded the oral rule, but no inquiry
was made. The written rule was included in the new em-
ployee manual in October.
2. Discussion
Respondent argues that an employer has the right to
limit employee activities both as to working time and as
to use of employer facilities, by promulgating discipli-
nary rules and by taking direct action. However, as
noted in the previous section of this decision, it is a vio-
lation of the Act if the rules are promulgated, or action
taken, solely for the purpose of discriminatorily interfer-
ing with protected activities. Dutch Boy, Inc., supra, and
Continental Kitchen, supra. The distribution of union lit-
erature here was by current employees, during nonwork-
ing hours. While it was contrary to work locations, it
was not contrary to existing rules and there was no
showing that it would necessarily result in interference
with worktime. As a result, I find, first, that the distribu-
tion was a protected practice and that Respondent's in-
1119
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
terference therewith was in violation of Section 8(a)(l)
of the Act.
Secondly, I find that Respondent's oral no-distribution
rule, referring to all times and all places, was overly
broad and also in violation of said section of the Act.
Thirdly, I do not agree with Respondent that, since
the written rule was issued the day after the oral rule,
and is "valid" pursuant to the Board's decision in T.R. W
Bearings, 257 NLRB 442 (1981),2 no remedial order
should issue. Respondent cites Bellinger Shipyards, 227
NLRB 620 (1976), but there the rationale for not issuing
a remedial order was that "Respondent voluntarily put
itself in compliance," that "there was no showing that
the employees were adversely affected," and "there was
no showing that the employer had engaged in other ac-
tivity other than legal opposition to the union." The
matter here is quite to the contrary. The invalid oral rule
was replaced by a still invalid written rule; the employ-
ees' attempted distribution was improperly interfered
with; the employees were given an invalid rule in a face-
to-face confrontation with Respondent's president, which
was never fully corrected; and there was other illegal
opposition to the Union. I find it necessary to recom-
mend a remedial order on this issue, that the no-distribu-
tion rule, issued in writing on September 29 and included
in the October revision of the employee manual, must be
withdrawn. 3
C. Forbidding Solicitation
The General Counsel contends that the "no-solicita-
tion" rule maintained by Respondent prior to September
29 constituted an unfair labor practice. The rule referred
to, in full, provided:
Collections-From time-to-time it is necessary for
the community to raise funds for various worthy
causes. All of us recognize the necessity for this and
all of us, as citizens, recognize a responsibility for
those who are less fortunate. It is our feeling that
contributions given by employees, however, should
be determined by employees on an individual basis
rather than as employees of the company. For this
reason soliciting is not permitted in our plant. Every
member of the community whether he/she works
for the company or not, should do for charities
whatever he/she and their family think they can
afford. [Emphasis added.]
' The T.R.W. decision finds that both "work time" and "work hours"
are insufficient descriptions without the clarification of "clear statement
that ... the rule does not apply during break periods and mealtimes, or
other specified periods during the workday when employees are properly
not engaged in performing their work tasks." Respondent argues that
clarification is achieved by the inclusion at the end of this rule in the em-
ployee manual of October of a sentence stating, "Working time does not
include meal time." Such clarification does not include "break periods"
or "other specified periods during the workday when employees are
properly not engaged in performing their work tasks." I therefore find
that the rule as currently stated is still overly broad and in violation of
the Act.
s The remedial order herein does not restrain Respondent from issuing
a proper rule, not in a contract of retaliation for protected activities by
employees and not solely as a defense against future protected activities.
This rule was thereafter modified, principally by
changing the italicized portion to read: "... soliciting
collections is not permitted in our office."
Respondent contends that the original rule "solely re-
lates to 'fund raising for various worthy causes' and not
solicitation in general." I agree that in view of the
narrow scope of the solicitation described this rule can
hardly be considered applicable to union or other pro-
tected solicitation. Further, the rule has been amended to
make the above interpretation specific. I find that neither
the original nor the current rule violates the Act, and
that no remedial order is necessary.
D. Promising Increased Budget for Wages
As referred to above, on July 28 an employee posted
on a company bulletin board a Wall Street Journal arti-
cle regarding the acquisition, by Respondent's corporate
parent, of another subsidiary, with a handwritten com-
ment pointing to the expenditure of a large sum of
money while current employees were allegedly paid so
little. Vice President Baumgartner, who believed that the
posting had been "by someone who was a union support-
er," responded the next day with a posted notice, stating
in part:
In this age of give-backs, layoffs and wage cuts, the
Predi wages for nonannualized workers (i.e., em-
ployees with semi-annual rather than annual wage
reviews) . . . increased by 4% + in the last review.
We are budgeting for an 8% increase in the wage
bill in 1983.
Respondent points out that nonannualized employees
had in fact received semi-annual wage increases averag-
ing 4 percent each increase, arguing that the forecasted 8
percent for the year 1983 did not constitute an increase
and came within the educated expectations of the em-
ployees. The notice contained other particulars, tying in-
creases to corporate profitability, inflation, and individual
productivity and quality of work. Respondent neither al-
leged nor proved any prior instance in which employees
were given advance notice of generalized or particular-
ized information on wage increases. The next nonannua-
lized wage review was not due until December, over 5
months after posting of the notice, which took place
during the union campaign.
Respondent also argues that promises of increases are
not in violation when in conformity with the history of
prior increases. In this case, however, the amount of in-
crease is juxtaposed against a presumed age of "give-
backs, layoffs and wage cuts," which mortally undercuts
its claim to historical perspective.
In the absence of a showing that the time of an an-
nouncement was governed by factors other than the
pendency of union activity, such timing is calculated to
influence employees in choosing a bargaining representa-
tive. Essex International, Inc., 216 NLRB 575, 576 (1975).
Respondent's notice therefore interfered with the pro-
tected activities of employees, and was an unfair labor
practice.
1120
PREDICASTS, INC.
E. Increased Wages for Withholding Support from a
Labor Organization
1. Facts
Paul Herdeg was employed by Respondent as a com-
puter programmer from June 1980 to July 1981, and
from June through mid-September 1982. His leaving Re-
spondent's employ both times was voluntary and with
mutually cordial relations. From July 1982, Earl Fowler
was Herdeg's supervisor. Fowler did not directly make
recommendations as to wage increases, but reported on
the performance of individual employees to his superiors,
who determined the amount of wage increases.
About July 29, Herdeg took part in a conversation
with Fowler and another programmer. Herdeg testified
that Fowler had stated that if a union came into his de-
partment the department would become "rigid" and "un-
professional," and that if the department remained "pro-
fessional" he "would do everything he could to make
sure everyone in the department got big pay raises at the
next pay review." Fowler testified that he had indeed
been involved in conversations regarding programming
"professionalism" and that unionization had the implica-
tion of "dragging" more structure into the computer di-
vision. He denied, however, ever stating that he would
seek higher wages for department employees if they re-
mained nonunion.
Shortly after the conversation, Herdeg prepared a
handwritten note, stating:
In the presence of Ray Dubkowski and myself, Mr.
Fowler said he would try to get larger pay in-
creases for the programmers under him [names de-
leted] but only if the systems division stays non-
union.
He gave the note to an employee known to him to be a
member of the Union's organizing committee. Herdeg
agreed that Fowler had never used the word "non-
union," but that Herdeg assumed that Fowler meant
"non-union" when, in the circumstances here, he used
the word "unprofessional."
2. Discussion
There is no dispute as to these facts other than Fowl-
er's intent in linking the phrases "union" and "non-pro-
fessional," and the effects thereof on wage increases. I
find that Fowler successfully intended his conversation
to contain the implication that the failure of the Union's
organizing campaign would result in higher wages.
Fowler clearly enunciated his meaning in the form of a
classic logical syllogism-that (A) unionism equals (B)
loss of professionalism, and that (B) loss of professional-
ism equals (C) loss of higher wage increases. Hence, (A)
equals (C), and unionism equals loss of higher wage in-
creases. Creating such an inference was an unfair labor
practice.
F. Dominating and Interfering with Labor
Organization
1. Facts
In 1976 Respondent created a "Personnel Committee."
The employee manual, prior to its revision in 1982, pro-
vided that:
The Personnel Committee is composed of employ-
ees, none of whom is an executive [later defined as
a salaried employee exempt from the Wages and
Hours Act, and approved by Respondent's presi-
dent], elected . . . by all Professional and Supervi-
sory [later defined as salaried employees other than
executives, exempt from Wages and Hours Act],
full time and regular [i.e., those working 40 hours
per week or less] employees. The term of office is
one year and after two consecutive terms an em-
ployee is not eligible for re-election until after a
lapse of one year .... At its first meeting, the Per-
sonnel Committee shall elect a chairman . . . the
Personnel Committee has two chief duties and respon-
sibilities One is to serve as an information exchange
between employees and management. The other is to
handle grievances submitted by employees [Emphasis
and bracketed material added.]
In fact, the authority of the Committee to "handle"
grievances was always limited to mediation between par-
ties and, if the employee was not satisfied, making non-
binding recommendations to management. It was never
involved in collective bargaining over labor disputes,
wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, or conditions
of work. On a number of occasions it made studies of
employee needs or desires, for example, a "snow day"
policy, productivity standards, building security, interde-
partmental transfer rules, medical insurance, maternity
leave, child care benefits, and automatic paycheck depos-
it, and reported same to Respondent. In several instances
it also mediated between employee and supervisor, and
made recommendations to Respondent's higher manage-
ment when no agreement was possible.
Committee members receive regular pay for the time
they devote to Committee meetings and affairs during
working hours, and Respondent provides its facilities for
meetings. In December 1982, Respondent appointed its
director of human resources, Audrey Cates, a supervisor
and agent of Respondent, to be permanent nonelected
chairperson of the Committee, and changed the voting
procedure for membership in the Committee. Cates has
unilaterally abrogated the elective positions of vice chair-
person and secretary, and dictates the agenda of meet-
ings. The revised employee manual of October 1982
make no mention of or provision for a "Personnel Com-
mittee," but such Committee continues to function under
the chairmanship of the human resources director. On
April 8, 1983, it reported activities including discussion
of companywide productivity standards, bicycle parking
restrictions, and nepotism in hiring.
1121
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
2. Discussion
Permission to a labor organization to use the employ-
er's premises, or payment by the employer to employees
for time spent in operating a labor organization, or mem-
bership, coupled with activity, by employer's representa-
tives in a labor organization, each has been found by the
Board to constitute unlawful domination and/or interfer-
ence in violation of Section 8(a)(2) of the Act. The issue
here is whether the Personnel Committee constitutes a
labor organization within the meaning of the Act.
Section 2(5) of the Act defines a labor organization,
inter alia, as one "which exists for the purpose, in whole
or in part, of dealing with employers concerning griev-
ances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of em-
ployment, or conditions of work." To constitute a labor
organization, it is not required that the Committee
engage in collective bargaining-only that it "deal with"
Respondent.4 Even if the Committee did no more than
transmit employee views to Respondent and make rec-
ommendations, it would be considered as "dealing with"
Respondent so as to constitute a labor organization
within the definition of the Act. 5 The cases cited by Re-
spondent are distinguishable. In General Foods Corp., 231
NLRB 1322 (1977), the organizations involved consisted
of "teams" of all employees, organized by the employer
for the performance of employers' work rather than for
"dealing with" employee relations. In Mercy Memorial
Hospital Corp., 231 NLRB 1108 (1977), the "grievance
committee" only had the function of considering the
third step of employees' grievance proceedings, and did
not "deal with" the employer regarding the grievances
or on other matters by making recommendations, as is
done by the Committee herein.
In the matter at hand, the Personnel Committee was
formed for the purpose of, and engaged in, dealing with
the Employer in the exchange of information between
employer and employees on nonpay needs and wants,
and in making recommendations on working conditions
and grievances. It is thereby a labor organization within
the meaning of the Act; Respondent's provision of meet-
ing rooms, payment to Committee members for partici-
pation during worktime, unilateral change in election
procedures, and the filling of offices and the conducting
of business by employer agents constitutes domination of,
assistance to, and interference with a labor organization
in violation of Section 8(a)(2) of the Act.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the
Act.
2. Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8(a)(l) of the Act by
interfering with employee use of bulletin boards and with
employee distribution of union material, and by promis-
ing an increased budget for wages and an increase in
wages in order to induce employees to withhold their
NLRB v. Cabot Carbon Co., 360 U.S. 203 (1959).
5 NLRB v. Thompson Ramo Wooldridge. Inc., 305 F.2d 807 (7th Cir.
1962).
support from a labor organization, and has engaged in
unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section
8(a)(2) of the act by domination of, assistance to, and in-
terference with the administration of the Personnel Com-
mittee of Predicasts, Inc., a labor organization as defined
by Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. These unfair labor practices affect commerce within
the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in unfair
labor practices, in violation of Section 8(aXl) and (2) of
the Act, it will be recommended that Respondent cease
and desist therefrom, and take certain affirmative action
designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. Having
further found that Respondent has dominated, assisted,
and interfered with the administration of a labor organi-
zation, it will be further recommended that Respondent
disestablish its Personnel Committee.
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law, and
on the entire record, I issue the following recommend-
ed6
ORDER
The Respondent, Predicasts, Inc., Cleveland, Ohio, its
officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Refusing to permit employees to post literature on
company bulletin boards, or to distribute literature at
times they are not expected to be working, which in-
cludes breaktime, mealtime, or other periods when em-
ployees are not actively at work, or at places on Re-
spondent's premises which are not workplaces.
(b) Promising increases in budgets for wages, or in-
creased wages, in order to induce employees to withhold
their support from any labor organization.
(c) Dominating, assisting, or interfering with the ad-
ministration of any labor organization of its employees,
or giving support to such labor organization.
(d) In any like or related manner interfering with, re-
straining, or coercing employee in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act or dominating,
assisting, or interfering with the administration of any
labor organization.
2. Take the following affirmative action which will ef-
fectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Withdraw and abolish subpart A, "Bulletin
Boards," of rule XIII of the employee manual, dealing
with "Internal Communications."
(b) Withdraw and abolish the second paragraph, deal-
ing with distributions, of subpart B, "Solicitation," of
rule XIII of the employee manual, dealing with "Internal
Communications."
I 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.
1122
PREDICASTS, INC.
(c) Completely disestablish the Personnel Committee
as the representative of any of its employees for the pur-
pose of dealing with it.
(d) Post at its offices and places of business at Cleve-
land, Ohio, Copies of the attached notice marked "Ap-
pendix." 7 copies of the notice, on forms provided by the
Regional Director for Region 8, after being signed by
I 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 Judgment
of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the Nation-
al Labor Relations Board."
the Respondent's authorized representative, shall be
posted by the Respondent immediately upon receipt and
maintained 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, de-
faced, 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.
1123