Raytheon Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 10, 1986

277 N.L.R.B. 1528 (N.L.R.B. 1986)

1528 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Raytheon Missile Systems Division , Raytheon Com-
pany and International Union of Electronic,
Electrical , Technical , Salaried and Machine
Workers, AFL-CIO. Case 1-CA-22585
10 January 1986
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN DOTSON AND MEMBERS
JOHANSEN AND BABSON
On 16 August 1985 Administrative Law Judge
George F. Mclnerny issued the attached decision.
The Respondent filed exceptions and a supporting
brief, and the General Counsel filed an answering
brief.
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 ' and to adopt the recommended Order
as modified.2
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board adopts the
recommended Order of the administrative law
judge as modified below and orders that the Re-
spondent, Raytheon Missile Systems Division,
Raytheon Company, Andover, Massachusetts, its
officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take
the action set forth in the Order as modified.
1. Substitute the following for paragraph 1(a).
"(a) Discriminatorily prohibiting its employees
from posting notices advertising functions spon-
sored by the Union, or an in-plant organizing com-
mittee, or both."
2. Substitute the attached notice for that of the
administrative law judge.
1 Member Babson finds it unnecessary to pass on the judge's applica-
tion of Holyoke Water Power Co, 273 NLRB 1369 (1985), to the present
case.
2 We will conform the Order and notice to the violation found
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 discriminatorily prohibit our em-
ployees from posting notices advertising functions
sponsored by International Union of Electronic,
Electrical, Technical, Salaried, and Machine Work-
ers, AFL-CIO, or by an in-plant organizing com-
mittee, or both.
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.
RAYTHEON MISSILE SYSTEMS DIVI-
SION, RAYTHEON COMPANY
Michael Fitzsimmons, Esq., for the General Counsel.
Thomas Royal' Smith, Esq. (Siegal, O'Connor & Kainen,
P. C), of Boston, Massachusetts, and Alfred C. Philips,
Esq., of Lexington, Massachusetts, for the Respondent.
Jonathan Hiatt, Esq. (Angoff Goldman, Manning, Pyle,
Wanger & Hiatt), of Boston, Massachusetts, for the
Charging Party.
DECISION
GEORGE F. MCINERNY , Administrative Law Judge.
Based on a charge filed on 17 December 1984 by Inter-
national Union of Electronic , Electrical , Technical, Sala-
ried and Machine Workers, AFL-CIO (the Union), al-
leging that Raytheon Missile Systems Division , Raytheon
Company (Respondent or the Company) had violated
Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act. The
Regional Director for Region 1 of the National Labor
Relations Board issued a complaint on 21 January 1985,
alleging that the Company had violated Section 8(a)(1)
of the Act by prohibiting and restricting the posting of
union literature on company bulletin boards. The Com-
pany filed a timely answer in which it denied the com-
mission of any unfair labor practices.
Pursuant to an order of the Regional Director , a hear-
ing was held before me on 4 and 5 April 1985 in Boston,
Massachusetts , at which all parties were represented by
counsel and were afforded the opportunity to present
testimony and documentary evidence , to examine and
cross-examine witnesses , and to argue orally. Following
the hearing , the General Counsel and the Respondent
filed briefs , which have been carefully considered.
Based on the entire record of this case, including my
observations of the witnesses and their demeanor, I make
the following
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. JURISDICTION
The Company is a corporation having a plant in An-
dover, Massachusetts , where it is engaged in the manu-
facture and distribution of electronic and other products.
It annually sells and ships from its Andover location
products valued at over $50 ,000 directly to points out-
side the Commonwealth of Massachusetts . I find that the
Company is an employer engaged in commerce within
the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
277 NLRB No. 188
RAYTHEON CO 1529
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The parties agree, and I find, that the Union is a labor
organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the
Act.
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Background
The Company is a diversified international technology-
based corporation having five major industrial concentra-
tions: electronics, appliances, aircraft, energy services,
and miscellaneous, including publishing and heavy equip-
ment manufacturing. A substantial portion of the Compa-
ny's business is with the United States Government, in-
cluding ground-to-air missile systems with radar and
ground support. These systems are manufactured by the
Missile Systems Division, with plants in Bedford and
Lowell, Massachusetts, as well as the Andover plant in-
volved in this case. The Andover plant is the largest in
the Missile System Division and the largest plant operat-
ed by the Company in Massachusetts. The plant itself
covers over 25 acres, with manufacturing, fabrication,
administration, cafeteria, testing, assembly, maintenance,
and other areas. There are approximately 6000 employ-
ees, of whom about 3200 are hourly employees repre-
sented in several bargaining units by the International
Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW) and the
International Association of Machinists and Aerospace
Workers (IAM).
The remaining 2800 employees at the Andover plant,
described as salaried employees, are unorganized, but an
organizing campaign had begun in the summer of 1984
under the aegis of the Charging Party here, the Interna-
tional Union of Electronic, Electrical, Technical, Sala-
ried and Machine Workers.
B. The December 1984 Events
On 29 November 1984' Philip R. Kissel, a reliability
engineer and an 18-year Raytheon employee, had a con-
versation with Robert Mairs; an assistant labor relations
manager at the plant. Kissel was a member of an in-plant
committee of employees working for the organization of
salaried employees by the IUE.2 In the course of that or-
ganizational campaign, the Union decided to sponsor and
subsidize a Christmas party for employees of the Missile
Systems Division.3 Kissel was concerned because he and
others had posted 8-by-11-1/2-inch fliers advertising the
party on company bulletin boards, and those fliers had
been removed. They felt that they should obtain a com-
pany stamp of approval for the fliers in order to deter
this. Mairs could not not give Kissel an answer to his re-
quest, but finally on the following Tuesday, 4 December,
Mairs told Kissel that he could advertise the party
through posting a 3-by-5-inch card on the kiosk in the
I All dates herein are in 1984 unless otherwise specified.
Z Indeed , his sister , Dorothy Kissel , was a long-time employee of the
IUE District 2 in Saugus , Massachusetts
3 The parties stipulated that the Union paid for the hall where the
party was held, for preparing and printing advertising flyers for the
party, for the band, and for part of the food and drink served at the
party
cafeteria. This is the incident, undisputed as to its facts,
which gives rise to this case. The question I must answer
concerns the correct balance between the right of the
Employer to enjoy and control access to its property,
and the right of the Union, or the in-plant organizing
committee, to publicize its objections. This question, in
turn, depends on an analysis of the Company's policies
on the use of its bulletin boards and the actual practice
with respect to the uses to, which the boards are put.
Considerable evidence was presented on these two last-
mentioned issues.
C. Policy and Practice on Company Bulletin Boards
In a plant which covers over 25 acres, and employs
about 6000 persons, questions concerning communication
can be difficult and complex, but always important. The
Andover plant was completed in 1970 and occupied in
1971.
According to the testimony of Timothy R. Manning, a
labor relations officer for the Company, there are six cat-
egories of boards used at the Andover plant. Four kinds
of boards are covered and locked. These are used for
labor relations matters; legal notices; the Company's sug-
gestion program; and by the Raytheon Employees Ac-
tivities Association (REAA). These locked boards are
not important to this decision, but there are two catego-
ries of open boards which are important here.
There are 13 open cork bulletin boards located in
vending machine areas throughout the plant. Ronald E.
Guittar, the former manager of industrial relations for
the Andover plant, testified that when the plant was
built, around 1970, the Company,was concerned about
communicating with its employees. With this in mind the
Company provided for the integration of open cork bul-
letin boards into areas to be used for vending machines.
Employees using the vending machines would read ma-
terials posted by the Company on these boards. Like so
many sound ideas, this one went astray, because the very
factors of convenience and visibility which recommend-
ed the idea of having these boards to management for
communicating with employees, made them equally at-
tractive to employees for communicating with each
other. As time went by after the plant was opened in
1971, Guittar testified that employees were posting no-
tices of sales, services, and whatever, on the, boards,
above or on the sides of the boards and all over the
vending machines, with "every conceivable attaching
device known to man."
By 1976 these open cork boards, referred to by the
Company as "information centers," were, in Guittar's
words, "out of effective management control." Company
officials recognized the fact that employees needed to
communicate with each other and, indeed, the fact that
they would communicate with each other through the
use of the open cork boards, whether the Company
agreed or not. At the same time, as was emphasized by
several company witnesses, the Andover plant, as the
largest in the Missile Systems Division, and the largest
Raytheon plant in Massachusetts, is a "show place" and,
beyond ordinary requirements that the plant be kept
clean and orderly, the Company was aware of the fact
1530 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
that many visitors, from boy scouts to high United States
and foreign officials, visited and were given tours of the
factory. This reinforced the Company's view that neat-
ness and order was and is a plantwide imperative.
With these factors in mind, Guittar decided to install a
kiosk, similar to those found in Paris, for the use of em-
ployees and other groups for announcements and notices.
The kiosk, as placed in the employees' cafeteria, was
about 8 feet tall and octagonal in shape. Each side was to
be devoted to one area of employees' interest. There
were panels for company information; housing; automo-
tive; furniture and equipment; miscellaneous sales; serv-
ices; REAA; and announcements. The Company recog-
nized that the kiosk would not have the capacity to
carry all of the sales announcements, so the Company
permitted the continued use of the cork boards for em-
ployees to advertise sales on 3-by-5-inch cards. This
practice was later expanded to allow for carpool adver-
tisements.
In connection with the installation of the kiosk, and
the continuing use of the cork boards, the Company es-
tablished a rather elaborate system of rules for these
communication facilities. The rules were not written
down, nor, so far as I can determine from the record
here, communicated to employees, except for a posted
notice which will be discussed below, and the testimony
at this hearing as to the rules, presented by company wit-
nesses Manning, Guittar, and Sullivan, I found to be im-
precise and confusing. I can, however, in consideration
of all the testimony, conclude that it was the intention of
the Company that the kiosk would be the primary gath-
ering place for notices and announcements dealing with
employee-to-employee communications and the sole and
exclusive place for communications from outside organi-
zations to Raytheon employees.
All the testimony in this case shows that these policies
were only halfheartedly and sporadically pursued and
were, ultimately, almost completely ineffective. Two of
the employees who testified here, Kissel and Murray,
were in agreement that there were, as a practical matter,
no real restrictions on the use of open cork boards not
only by employees, but by all manner of outside com-
mercial organizations, the REAA, and the Raytheon
Employees Credit Union. The messages and announce-
ments posted by all of these groups were not limited by
size, or restricted as to the time they could remain
posted. I appreciate the fact that, on cross-examination,
these witnesses were not able to recall specific details
about what was posted on bulletin boards, where things
were posted, and for how long such postings remained.
But considering the testimony of the Company's wit-
nesses as well, I am compelled to conclude that the open
cork boards were in a permanent state of disarray,
making it impossible for any ordinary observer to recall
such details as what was posted, where, and for how
long. Timothy Manning testified in detail on the Compa-
ny's attempts to introduce order to the bulletin boards,
but admitted that the Andover plant is an "enormous"
facility, and that Jeremiah (Jay) Sullivan could not,
alone, adequately police the use of the boards. Sullivan
himself corroborated this testimony by his own descrip-
tion of his function in checking the boards once or twice
a week, and his instructions to his staff to make sure the
postings comported with the company policy of 3-by-5-
inch cards, covering only items for sale, listing only
home telephones rather than company extensions, and
that time limits were observed. He did admit that he did
not remove material if the person posting it had not re-
ceived prior permission; and admitted further his own
frustrations about he "constant problem" of policing the
boards. Guittar, who I find to be a perceptive as well as
a candid witness, pointed out that the Company's rules
were constantly tested by the creativity and persistence
of those using the boards for their own as well as outside
activities.4 But his testimony emphasized the desultory
nature of the Company's approach to the problem in that
he pointed to only three times, 18 March 1981, 6 January
1982, and 13 October 1982, when he was impelled to
raise his concern about the bulletin boards at industrial
relations staff meetings. Further, while he recalled
having directed that a notice be prepared and placed on
all bulletin boards restricting the size, content, and dura-
tion of notices in December 1983, he admitted that this
notice had to be posted "repeatedly" because "its life
span was something less than 24 hours."5
In these circumstances, I conclude and find that while
the policy of the Company may have been, and may
continue to be, to require an orderly categorization, or
compartmental assignment of different types of notices
and announcements to different assigned spaces, the
actual practice has been to condone, if not officially
permit, a general use of the bulletin boards, more par-
ticularly the open cork boards, by all the sundry pur-
poses people wished to use them.
This finding is based primarily on the testimony of the
Company's witnesses Manning, Sullivan, and Guittar,
which shows that, with the exception of the contruction
of the kiosk in 1976,6 there was no basic change in com-
pany policy with respect to notices and announcement
from the time the cork boards were opened up to em-
ployees after the plant opened to the present time; the
rare occasions where, as shown by the industrial rela-
tions minutes, the Company attempted crackdowns on
"misuse" of the boards; the impossible burdens imposed
on a single company official to see to the policing of the
13 boards and the kiosk in this enormous plant; and the
fact that by allowing this situation to continue not just
for days or months, but for years, the practice of permis-
siveness necessarily reflects a company policy of laissez
faire, despite the existence of contrary formal policies.
These conclusions are corroborated by the experience
of the employees, who testified in this case. Their per-
4 Although Guittar did emphasize that he had forbidden posting by
outside commercial interests, even where the services and products of-
fered would have been of benefit to employees, except in the form of 3-
by-5-inch cards on one section of the kiosk
5 I credit Guittar's testimony that this notice was prepared and posted
late in 1983, but I cannot thereby discredit employees Kissel and Murray,
who testified that they did not see it until the end of 1984. Certainly, if
the notices lasted such a short time on the bulletin boards , one cannot
fault an employee who does not remember seeing it.
6 Recognizing, as Guntur did in his testimony, that the kiosk could not
meet the demand for space to post notices and announcements for a work
force of 6000 people
RAYTHEON CO.
ception was that there were no restrictions to the posting
of notices by employees advertising things for sale or
rent, like the advertisement for Murray's lakefront cot-
tage, which was written on a 5-by-6-1/4-inch paper and
remained posted from February until September 1984; or
Croteau's posting of his son's business cards; on the testi-
mony of Kissel and Murray as to the variety of things,
services , and facilities constantly advertised on the cork
boards.7
D. Analysis
There is, of course, no statutory right for employees,
or others, to use the employer's bulletin boards. Honey-
well, Inc., 262 NLRB 1402 (1982). But if the use of the
bulletin boards is subject to no set restrictions, and has
generally been open to all to post material unrestricted as
to size and duration of posting and question, then the
Company may not use either a claim that its policy prop-
erly forbids the posting in question. Nor may it require
its permission before posting to justify a finding that the
property interests of the Company is paramount over the
organizational rights of employees, Holyoke Water Power
Co., 273 NLRB 1369 (1985).
Since I have found that the Company's practice was to
allow the posting of sales, services, and commercial ac-
tivities, I find that the notice here advertising the Christ-
mas party sponsored by the IUE and the in-plant orga-
nizing committee must be permitted, and that the refusal
to allow the posting is a violation of Section 8(a)(1) of
the Act.8 R. H. Macy & Co., 267 NLRB 177 (1983);
Union Carbide Corp., 259 NLRB 974 (1982); Honeywell,
Inc., supra.
IV. THE REMEDY
Having found that the Company has engaged in cer-
tain unfair labor practices, I will recommend that it cease
and desist therefrom, and that it take certain affirmative
action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act, by
posting a notice to employees.
I While I consider the Company's theory that the IUE is an outside
commercial organization to be rather strained at this late day in the histo-
ry of labor-management relations (see the 1913 Clayton Act statement of
policy, 38 Stat . 731, 15 U.S.C § 17), but my conclusion that the Compa-
ny's practice permitted commercial as well as employee postings and an-
ouncements makes it unnecessary for me to rule on that issue.
8 1 do not consider the alternative offer of a 3-by-5-inch card to be
posted on the kiosk, or the publicity admittedly used by the Union to be
adequate substitutes for the forbidden posting, Honeywell, Inc., supra
1531
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Company, Raytheon Missile Systems Division,
Raytheon Company, is an employer within the meaning
of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
2. The Union, International Union of Electronic, Elec-
trical, Technical, Salaried and Machine Workers, AFL-
CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning of Sec-
tion 2(5) of the Act.
3. By refusing an employee permission to post a notice
about a union-sponsored Christmas party, the Company
has violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and
on the entire record, I issue the following recommend-
ed9
ORDER
The Respondent, Raytheon Missile Systems Division,
Raytheon Company, Andover, Massachusetts, its offi-
cers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Refusing to allow employees to post notices adver-
tising functions sponsored by the Union, or an in-plant
organizing committee, or both.
(b) 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) Post at its facility in Andover, Massachusetts,
copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix."10
Copies of the notice, on forms provided by the Regional
Director for Region 1, after being signed by the Re-
spondent'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 customarily
posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respond-
ent to ensure that the notices are not altered, defaced, or
covered by any other material.
(b) Notify the Regional Director in writing within 20
days from the date of this Order what steps the Re-
spondent has taken to comply.
9 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
io 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."