Standard Pressed Steel Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 27, 1969

176 N.L.R.B. 175 (N.L.R.B. 1969)

STANDARD PRESSED STEEL CO.
Standard Pressed Steel Co., IFD , The Cleveland Cap
Screw Company and International Union, United
Automobile , Aerospace and Agricultural
Implement Workers of America , UAW. Case
8-CA-5165
May 27, 1969
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS FANNING, JENKINS, AND ZAGORIA
On March 25 , 1969, Trial Examiner Benjamin A.
Theeman issued his Decision in the above -entitled
proceeding , finding that- the Respondent had
engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor
practices and recommending that it cease and desist
therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set
forth in the attached Trial Examiner ' s Decision.
Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the
Trial Examiner ' s Decision and a brief in support
thereof.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this case to a
three-member panel.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial
Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no
prejudicial error was committed . The rulings are
hereby affirmed . The Board has considered the Trial
Examiner 's Decision , the exceptions and brief, and
the entire record in this case, and hereby adopts the
findings ,' conclusions , and recommendations of the
Trial Examiner , as modified below.'
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order the
Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner, as
amended , and hereby orders that the Respondent,
Standard Pressed Steel Co., IFD , The Cleveland
Cap Screw Company , Cleveland , Ohio, its officers,
agents , successors , and assigns , shall take the action
set forth in the Trial Examiner ' s Recommended
Order , as herein modified:
Delete the words "like or related " from the first
line in the third indented paragraph of the
Appendix , and substitute the word "other."
'As noted by the Respondent , the Trial Examiner erred in assigning 1967
as the effective date of the Respondent 's no-distribution rule. 1957 should
be substituted for 1967. This does not affect our decision herein.
'The Respondent has requested oral argument . This request is hereby
denied as the record , the exceptions , and the brief adequately present the
issues and the positions of the parties.
TRIAL EXAMINER 'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
175
BENJAMIN A. THEEMAN , Trial Examiner : The complaint
alleges that Respondent , Standard Pressed Steel Co., IFD,
The Cleveland Cap Screw Company , had engaged and is
engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce
within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) and (3 ) and Section
2(6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended , 29 U.S . C. Sec . 151, et seq . seq. (the Act) by (a)
putting into effect a rule prohibiting the distribution of
any type of literature on Respondent 's premises except
that originated within Respondent and approved by its
personnel department and (b) suspending Sterling P.
Newberry III because he had joined, assisted or favored a
union and had distributed union literature at the plant in
violation of the aforesaid rule. Respondent denies the
commission of any unfair labor practices.
Pursuant to notice , a hearing was held before me in
Cleveland , Ohio , on November 25, 1968 . The General
Counsel and Respondent appeared by counsel . They were
given full opportunity to participate , adduce evidence, and
examine and cross-examine witnesses . The General
Counsel and Respondent argued orally at the close of the
hearing. Respondent filed a brief. The arguments and the
brief have been carefully considered.
Upon the entire record in the case and from my
observation of the witnesses, I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT
Respondent is, and at all times material herein, a
Pennsylvania corporation , with a plant located in
Cleveland , Ohio , where it is engaged in the manufacture
and production of industrial fasteners . Respondent, in the
course and conduct of its business, annually ships products
valued in excess of $50,000 directly to points outside the
State of Ohio . In accord with the foregoing , it is found
that Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the
Act.
11. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION
International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace
and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, UAW
(the Unioa) is a labor organization within the meaning of
Section 2(5) of the Act.'
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Issues
In 1957 Respondent placed in effect a no-distribution
rule affecting its entire premises . On September 25, 1968,
Newberry was suspended for 2 weeks without pay for
violating this rule. The issues are whether (1) the
maintenance and enforcement of the no-distribution rule
was violative of Section 8(a)(l) of the Act; and (2) the
suspension of Newberry was violative of Section 8(a)(3) of
the Act.
'The charge and amended charge upon which the complaint issued were
filed by the Union . The Union was not present at the hearing.
176 NLRB No. 26
176 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
B. Background and General Information
Effective December 5, 1967, the Respondent issued the
following procedural regulation , entitled
DISTRIBUTION OF LITERATURE ON
COMPANY PROPERTY AND THE USE OF
COMPANY BULLETIN BOARDS
The regulation provided:
The Company wishes to keep employees informed of all
happenings concerning matters relating to employment
at The Cleveland Cap Screw Company.
This is accomplished by several means of
communication with the employees. The Cleveland Cap
Screw Company uses the following methods of
communication:
1. Bulletin Board Notices
2. Letters to the homes of employees
3. Employee and supervisory meetings
4. SPS News and The Link (Company House
Organs)
5. Employee counselling
6. Announcements on public address system.
In order to eliminate any errors in communicating, the
distribution of any type of literature on Company
premises will not be permitted except that which
originates within the Company and only then with the
approval of the Personnel Department.
Bulletin boards are located throughout the plant and
office as another means of keeping the employees
informed.
Employees are not permitted to post anything on the
bulletin boards or elsewhere in the plant without first
obtaining permission from the Personnel Department.
Employees are also prohibited from removing or
defacing anything that has been posted.
The Respondent issued its no-distribution rule in its
own best interests . Through its use, Respondent intended
to exercise control over the communications among the
employees to prevent the spread of the wrong type of
information . Also the rule was intended to prevent chaos
in the use of bulletin board space. No employee or other
person ever sought permission from the Company to
distribute literature on the company premises. As
indicated in the rule, Respondent has published and
distributed company publications among its employees.
One of them was entitled "The Link ZD Security."
The company plant in Cleveland has a front and back
entrance . It has no fences or gates . During September
1968, the rear entrance was closed because of repairs.
Employees enter the company building on the ground
floor where the locker rooms are located and where they
punch the timeclocks. No production occurs on the
ground floor . Production occurs on the upper floors. The
workday of the Company begins at 7 a.m.
For a number of years the Union attempted to organize
the Company . A representation election was held on
February 24, 1967, which the Union lost. Since then the
employees have not been represented by a union . Within
the past 2 years the Union on 35 /40 occasions has
distributed handouts at the front and back entrances to
the plant . Employees have participated in the
distributions . The record contains no evidence of any
friction between the Company and the Union or the
employees because of these distributions.'
C. Newberry and the Selective Service
Newberry was employed by the Respondent in October
1967. His foreman was Frank D'Vorak. Several weeks
before September 25, 1968, Newberry had received a
notice to appear at the Selective Service. In connection
with such appearances, the Company had a rule providing
that it would allow an employee l day's leave with pay.
Newberry understood that "the law of the land states"
that a person could be held at the induction center 3 days.
Under these circumstances, Newberry considered the
company rule was "unfair." He believed that the
Company should pay the employee for his absence up to 3
days "since it wasn 't the employee's fault."
He spoke to D'Vorak about his feelings and was
referred to Mr. Willett, . the manager of Employee
Relations . Willett told him that 1 day's pay was the
company rule; that hundreds of employees have been so
paid without objection. Newberry again urged it was
unfair. Willett pointed out there were a lot of other
company rules that employees might disagree with but
still they were required to abide by them. Newberry stated
that he had the right to question the rules. Willett told
Newberry that whether he liked it or not the Company
was going to adhere to the 1-day rule.
D. Newberry Distributes a Pamphlet and its
Consequences
On September 25, 1968, about 6:30 a.m., Newberry
stood in front of the timeclocks on the ground floor of the
Company plant and passed out a one-page leaflet to the
employees as they punched in.
The leaflet had been prepared by Newberry. In part it
referred back to the earlier conversation with Willett.
Newberry also felt that the right of employees to question
a company rule "was a subject for discussion among
employees." The leaflet read as follows:
WHAT'S IT ALL ABOUT???
The latest issue of "The Link" said that people in
the finishing dept. got ZD awards because Frank
D'Vorak is such a good foreman, and people will "do
anything" for a good foreman. How do we know? "Just
ask anyone in the finishing dept." says "The Link."
Personally, I don 't remember hearing about any poll
being taken of the working people in this shop. So why
does "The Link" (our favorite company newsletter)
claim that we all love and adore our foreman without
asking us? Because it is the bosses ' paper , and the boss
never really listens to our opinions . He would rather tell
us what our opinion is.'
Harry Willett perfectly expressed the Company's
feelings toward its employees just yesterday afternoon.
When I asked him about the reason behind a company
rule, he told me there was no reason - it's just a rule.
"It doesn ' t matter if the rule is right or wrong, it's the
rule," was good old Harry 's remark.
After all, why should the master consult the slave?
Why should the dictator consider the feeling of his
'Several charges were filed against the Company which did not reach the
complaint stage.
'It is inferred that the first two paragraphs of this leaflet refer to Issue
No. 25 of "The Link" dated September 20, 1968 . Therein was an article
stating that Frank D'Vorak is a good foreman and his employees "will do
almost anything to please " him. Further, it went on to state that the group
D'Vorak supervised had won the Outstanding Award for the month of
August.
STANDARD PRESSED STEEL CO. 177
subjects? The answer is that he won't, unless it will
make him a profit.
Which brings us to what it's all about. The only
reason the company hands out its little "gifts" like
"The Link", ZD awards, and other crap is that it
thinks that will keep us from demanding what is really
ours -
I. decent pay so we won't have, to work overtime to
make a living.
2. Job security, freedom from arbitrary company
policies.
3. Better hospitalization, more vacation
4. Most important - DEMOCRACY-- the right to
have a say in the decisions that affect us
Working people have learned that no one ever
"gives" us anything! We have to Organize and Fight
for it. Don't listen to any bull about what the Union
will or won't do for us. WE are the Union and we must
do for ourselves. Remember , every "Link" the
company puts over on us just strengthens the chain
around our necks. Dig it?
Sterling Newberry
Call or write the U.A.W. organizational office
Sign a card today.
917 E. 222 St.
731 - 5488
Labor donated
He continued the distribution until shortly before 7
a.m. No doubt with the intention of helping distribution,
he erroneously referred to the leaflet as the ZD or the
"New ZD."' At 7 he punched in and went upstairs to his
work bench. Before doing so, he placed a bunch of the
leaflets on a table in front of the timeclock where the
Company leaves its literature. At his work bench he put a
number of the leaflets alongside his lunch box on the work
bench. The record does not show what happened to these
two bunches of leaflets.' The remainder of the leaflets he
placed in his locker.
About 4 p.m. that day, D'Vorak asked Newberry to
come with him to Willett's office. A fourth person Bud
Wolf, a general foreman for the Company was also
present. Wolf told Newberry that because he had handed
out the leaflet in the plant he was suspended for 2 weeks.
Willett stated the reasons: (1) the leaflet had disrupted the
normal operation of the plant; (2) it contained malicious
statements about the Company; and (3) there was a
company rule about passing leaflets out.
Newberry was out of work for 2 weeks and received no
pay for the period. After his return , he worked an
additional week and then left voluntarily.
No doubt in an effort to induce the employees to take the leaflet. The
Company brought out this fact but does not claim that the
misrepresentation was a cause for the suspension.
'On cross-examination Newberry testified:
Q. And isn 't it also true that you left a supply in the corner of your
table or desk?
A. I left it with my lunch box.
Q. Why were they with the lunch box?
A. Because that was my property.
Q. They were not in it.
A. No.
Q. Did anybody come over and pick them up?
A. I wouldn't know.
E. Company Practice Under the Rule and
Newberry's Knowledge
Since 1957, Respondent has been consistent in
enforcing the nondistribution rule. No employee or other
person ever sought permission from the Company to
distribute literature on Company premises. Newberry was
the first employee to do so. Newberry neither sought nor
obtained Company permission to distribute the leaflet.
Newberry had never heard of the company rule against
distribution, had never seen a book of rules, and had
never seen such a rule posted on a bulletin board. During
the time he was employed he had known of no
distribution of literature other than "The Link" and other
company literature and the pamphlets distributed by the
Union at the plant entrances.'
F. Newberry's Union Activity
Newberry was a member of the Union and attended
union meetings . While working he wore a union button
and for the last 2 months of his employment wore a union
arm band. Starting with March 1968, he actively solicited
union membership among the employees and passed out
authorization cards in the locker room, outside the plant
and at the machines durmg lunchtime. This was in accord
with union instructions on this subject.
Analysis and Conclusions
1. The Company's no-distribution rule is violative of
Section 8(a)(1)
There is no doubt that the Company' s rule , quoted in
full above, prohibits employees from distributing literature
in nonworking areas on nonworking time without first
receiving company approval.' It is now well established by
the Board and the Courts that the existence of such a rule,
absent a showing of necessity, is in violation of Section
8(a)(1) of the Act.'
As to the rule, the Company makes no showing either
of necessity or special circumstances. It states that the
rule was issued in its own best interests and to control
communications among the employees.' The first reason,
absent details, is considered neither a showing of necessity
'Newberry testified to two instances of solicitation on the work floor
during working hours once for flowers for an employee 's deceased wife;
and another time, for money for a gift for a retiring employee . The record
contains no evidence of disciplinary action by the Company with regard to
these instances In any event , oral solicitation is a separate issue not
material to the present case See Stoddard-Quirk Manufacturing Co., 138
NLRB 615, 616.
'Reasonably , the rule may be further interpreted to forbid the
distribution of any employee literature . The third paragraph of the rule
permits the distribution of literature "which originates within the
Company." In the rule the word "Company" is constantly used so as to
distinguish it from, and to the exclusion of, "employees." For example the
opening sentence contains the statement "The Company wishes to keep
employees informed . ." The last two paragraphs refer specifically to
"employees" and lays down prohibitions directed specifically at employees
in relation to bulletin board posting.
'Cone Mills Corporation , White Oak Plant , 174 NLRB No. 151, SNC
Manufacturing Co., Inc, 174 NLRB No. 31; Accurate Products, Inc., 170
NLRB No. 173; Taylor Instrument Co.. 165 NLRB No. 83; Stoddard
Quirk Manufacturing Co., 138 NLRB 615; N.L.R.B. v. Mid States Metal
Products . Inc.. 403 F.2d 702 (C A. 5), Winchester Spinning Corporation v
N L.R.B., 402 F.2d 299 (C.A. 4X N.L R B . v. General Industries
Electronics Company. 401 F.2d 297 (C.A. 8), and cases cited and
discussions held in each one.
'The third reason stated- to prevent chaos in the use of the bulletin
178 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
nor a special circumstance . The second reason is precisely
what constitutes a violation of the Act in that nonwork
time and nonwork areas are included in the areas kept
under company control.
2. The leaflet is part of the union organizing effort
Respondent in its brief contends that the leaflet was the
product and concern of Newberry exclusively, and not a
union activity; that Newberry acted for himself alone and
the only motivation for the leaflet was Willett's refusal to
change company policy dealing with Selective Service.
The record does show that the leaflet is Newberry's
creation, and as Newberry admitted does refer back to the
conversation about Willett concerning pay for Selective
Service absences . But the leaflet as distributed does not
present a personal issue . As counsel for the Respondent
admitted, "it is well written." In that respect, a perusal of
the leaflet shows the author has deaccented the Selective
Service issue and emphasized and accented what he
considered an arbitrary action of the Company with
respect to its rules . In addition, the leaflet set forth a
number of other items that affected working conditions;
and presented several reasons why the employees should
join the UAW. The leaflet ends with the admonition that
the employee "Call or write the UAW organization office
. Sign a card today." The leaflet leaves little doubt in
the reader that it solicits union membership or that it
pertains to union organization . The Union did not disown
the leaflet but as Respondent 's counsel points out gave it
its belated blessing when it filed the charges herein.
Accordingly , it is found that the leaflet contains efforts
dealing with union organization of the employees of the
Company. Such an effort is protected by Section 7 of the
Act.' °
3. Respondent 's reasons for suspending Newberry are
invalid
Newberry was suspended because he handed out the
leaflet. As stated above, the reasons for the suspension
are: (a) he thereby disrupted the normal operation of the
plant ; (b) the leaflet contained malicious statements about
the Company; and (c) the distribution violated the
company rule against distribution on company premises.
None of the above-stated reasons have any validity.
a. The leaflet did not disrupt normal operations
The record is bare of any evidence to show that
Newberry's actions caused any disruption of the
operations of the Company. The bundle of leaflets left on
Newberry's work bench could have been available to
board , in all probability refers to the last two paragraphs of the rule rather
than to distribution of literature . Absent an allegation that the rule as to
the bulletin boards is violative of the Act and absent information
concerning the whereabouts of the bulletin boards and the use made of
them , no finding is made in relation to this portion of the rule. It is
suggested that in its future rule dealing with the use of bulletin boards, the
Company will consider the holdings of the Board and the Court in
Winchester Spinning Corporation. 168 NLRB No . 60, enfd . 402 F.2d 299
(C.A. 4).
"In any event , it has been held that a single employee was engaged in
concerted activities when single handedly he circulated a petition in a
matter related to employee working conditions . See Salt River Valley
Water Users ' Association v. N.L.R. B.. 206 F .2d 325 (C.A. 9), enfg. 99
NLRB 849.
employees during working hours. If so, a possibility exists
that some littering or work interruption could have
resulted. But the record contains nothing to show nor does
Respondent allege that either event occurred. The bare
fact that the leaflets were on Newberry's work bench
during working hours is insufficient to be the basis for an
inference that the leaflets were picked up by employees;
Newberry made an effort to induce employees to pick one
up; or that Newberry distributed any during working time.
The record clearly shows that Newberry distributed the
leaflets before the timeclocks during nonworking time in a
nonworking area. In doing so, Newberry did no more
than the Company did. The Company admits that "The
Link" is distributed in front of the timeclocks and copies
are left on the same table in front of the timeclocks on
which Newberry left his leaflet.
b. The leaflet contained no malicious statements
about the Company
The leaflet is quoted in full above. In some cases, the
language is "strong" and perhaps not in the best taste.
But the Board and Court decisions are loaded with
instances of rough, indecent and impolite words in
Union-Management Relations. The Company does not
specify what portion of the leaflet it considers malicious
but makes the broad statement that it was malicious.
Examination of the leaflet shows nothing contained
therein that is prejudicial or injurious so that it may be
deemed malicious." It has already been found that the
leaflet was an effort at union organization. The Act
clearly states that union organization is in the public
interest and is protected.
c. A violation of an invalid rule is not a suspension
for cause
As shown above, the company rule is violative of
Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act . It follows that Newberry's
suspension based on a violation of such an invalid rule
could not be a suspension for cause under the Act.
4. Respondent ' s reliance on the Shawnee Industries
case is misplaced
The record shows that Respondent for the past several
years had had amicable relations with the Union and that
the Union without protest or friction has been freely
distributing literature at the entrances to the plant. It also
shows that heretofore no employee had been disciplined
for violation of the no -distribution rule; the rule had been
neither applied or enforced ; and that neither the Union
nor any employee complained about the existence of the
rule.
In view of these facts Respondent alleges that the
employees have not been cut off from those who wish to
organize them and therefore the company rule is not in
violation of the Act. They refer to N.L.R.B. v. Shawnee
Industries , 333 F.2d 221 (C.A. 10),1= and state that such
permission to (solicit or) distribute was neither asked or
desired . Therefore Respondent contends no violation
"Black 's Law Dictionary, Fourth Edition , West Publishing Co., 1957,
defines the word as follows:
Malicious - characterized by or involving malice , having , or done with,
wicked or mischievious intentions or motives , wrongful and done
intentionally without just cause or excuse.
See also American Juriprudence . 34 p 631 section on malice
"Quote from Respondent 's brief not from the Court decision:
STANDARD PRESSED STEEL CO. 179
occurred. This contention is inapplicable here.
As found above, the Board, with the Court's approval
(see fn. 7) has consistently held that the existence of a
broad distribution rule requiring prior approval of the
Company for distribution of union (or any) literature on
company premises and time without specifying that the
distribution is restricted to working time and in working
areas or without a showing of special circumstances,
constitutes a violation of Section 8(a)(I) of the Act.
In addition, the Company admittedly suspended
Newberry for distributing union literature on noncompany
time and in a nonworking area in violation of this invalid
rule. Under such circumstances, the Tenth Circuit
referring to and differentiating the Shawnee Industries
case found the broad no-distribution rule violative of
Section 8(a)(1) and a discharge under it violative of
Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. The Court in N.L.R.B. v.
American Coach Co., 379 F.2d 699, pointed out that there
was no showing of special circumstances which justified
the application of a no-distribution rule; that an employee
had been discharged for making derogatory remarks
about the rule and for passing out authorization cards
during the lunch hour. One of the reasons for the
discharge was the breach of the no-distribution rule. At
page 701, the Tenth Circuit stated:
In National Labor Relations Board v. Shawnee
Industries , Inc., 10 Cir., 333 F.2d 221, 225, 56 LRRM
2567, we held that the adoption of a no-solicitation,
no-distribution rule was not of itself a violation of Sec.
8(a)(1). In that situation there was not only a special
circumstance, solicitation of contributions, but also "no
evidence that the rules were ever used to interfere with
any union or any organizational activities." Here we
have no special circumstance, but we do have the use of
the rules to interfere with the protected activities of the
employees during non-working time in non -working
areas. The protected activities involved here were union
solicitation and the distribution of union authorization
cards . In our opinion , the record establishes interference
with the rights granted by Sec. 71 and sustains the
Board's holding that the Company violated Sec. 8(a)(1).
. . .Both the solicitation and distribution were to
encourage the unionization of the plant - a permissible
activity in the circumstances presented. When the
record is viewed as a whole it supports the reasonable
inference that the discharge resulted from union
activities. Such a discriminatory discharge violates Sec.
8(a)(3).
5. Respondent's no-distribution rule and the
suspension of Newberry for violating it are violations
of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act
In accord with the foregoing and on the record as a
whole, it is found that the no-distribution rule of the
Company maintained and enforced at the plant is in
violation of Section 8(a)(l). It is further found that the
suspension of Newberry for the distribution of union
literature on nonworking time in a nonworking area was
"Mere promulgation of plant rules to bar employees from vending, .
and from distributing written or printed matter of any description on
plant premises unless approved by Management cannot support finding
of ULP in absence of evidence that any employee requested and was
denied approval to solicit support for a labor union." (Emphasis
supplied.)
'29 U.S.C. Sec. 157.
improper in violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and
upon the entire record, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Standard Pressed Steel Co., IFD, The Cleveland Cap
Screw Company, is an employer engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the
Act.
2. International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace
and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, UAW,
is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5)
of the Act.
3. By maintaining and enforcing its no-distribution rule
as set forth in its procedural regulation dated December 5,
1967, Respondent has interfered with, restrained, and
coerced its employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed
in Section 7, thereby engaging in unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8(a)(l) of the Act.
4. By discriminatorily suspending Sterling P. Newberry,
III, on September 25, 1968, for a period of 2 weeks
without pay because of his union or concerted activities,
as found above, the Company has engaged in and is
engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of
Section 8(a)(3) of the Act, thereby interfering with,
restraining, and coercing employees in the exercise of
rights guaranteed in Section 7, and engaging in unfair
labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of
the Act.
5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the
Act.
W. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
UPON COMMERCE
The activities of Respondent, set forth in section III,
above, occurring in connection with the business
operations set forth in section I, above, have a close,
intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and
commerce among the several States and tend to lead to
labor disputes burdening and obstructing such commerce
and the free flow thereof.
V. THE REMEDY
In view of the findings set forth above that the
Company has engaged in unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 8(a)(l) and (3) of the Act, it will be
recommended that it be required to cease and desist
therefrom and take such affirmative action as appears
necessary and appropriate to effectuate the policies of the
Act. In view of the finding that the Company suspended
employee Newberry for a period of 2 weeks without pay
because of his activities on behalf of the Union it will be
recommended that it be required to make him whole for
loss of earnings during the period of suspension with
interest thereon at the rate of 6 percent per annum."
Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law
and the entire record and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the
Act, I hereby issue the following:
"Newberry voluntarily left the employ of the Company a week after his
return to work A reinstatement order is not appropriate.
180 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Standard Pressed Steel Co., IFD, The Cleveland Cap
Screw Company, its officers, agents, successors, and
assigns , shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Maintaining and enforcing rules prohibiting
distribution of union literature or other materials, or
soliciting union membership , or engaging in other
protected union or concerted activities on employees' own
time in nonworking areas of company property.
(b) Discouraging membership in or activity on behalf of
International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and
Agricultural Implement Workers of America, UAW, or
any other labor organization by discharging , suspending
or otherwise discriminating against employees with respect
to hire , tenure , or any term or condition of employment.
(c) In any manner interfering with, restraining, or
co ercing employees in their exercise of the rights
guaranteed under Section 7 of the Act, except to the
extent that such rights may be affected by an agreement
requiring membership in a labor organization as a
condition of employment , as authorized in Section 8(a)(3)
of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action:
(a) Make Sterling P. Newberry, III, whole in the
manner set forth in the section of this decision entitled
"The Remedy."
(b) Preserve and, upon request , make available to the
Board or its agents , for examination and copying, all
payroll records, social security payment records,
timecards , personnel records and reports , and all other
records necessary to analyze and give effect to the
backpay requirements hereof.
(c) Post at its Cleveland, Ohio, plant a copy of the
attached notice marked "Appendix."" Copies of said
notice , on forms provided by the Board ' s Regional
Director for Region 8, shall , after being duly signed by
the Company 's authorized representative , be posted by the
Company immediately upon receipt thereof, and be
maintained thereafter for 60 consecutive days in
conspicuous places , including all places where notices to
employees are customarily posted . Reasonable steps shall
be taken by the Company to insure that said notices are
not altered , defaced , or covered by other material.
(d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 8, in
writing , within 20 days from receipt of this Decision, what
steps have been taken to comply with the terms hereof."
"In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board,
the words "a Decision and Order" shall be substituted for the words "the
Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner " in the notice . If the Board's
Order is enforced by a decree of the United States Court of Appeals, the
notice will be further amended by the substitution of the words "a decree
of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order" for the words
"a Decision and Order."
"In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board,
this provision shall be modified to read : "Notify the Regional Director for
Region 8, in writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what
steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith."
Dated By
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial
Examiner of the National Labor Relations Board and in
order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify our
employees that:
WE WILL NOT discourage membership of our
employees in International Union, United Automobile,
Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of
America, UAW, or in any other labor organization, by
discriminating in any manner in regard to the hire and
tenure of employment of any terms or condition of
employment of our employees, except as authorized in
Section 8 (a)(3) of the Act.
WE WILL NOT maintain or enforce any rules
prohibiting distribution of union literature or other
materials or solicitation of union membership on
company property on employees' own time and in
nonworking areas.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere
with , restrain , or coerce our employees in the right to
self-organization, to form, join, or assist, the
above-named union , or any other labor organization, to
bargain collectively through representatives of their own
choosing , to engage in concerted activities for the
purpose of mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from
any or all such activities, except to the extent that such
right may be affected by an agreement requiring
membership in a labor organization as a condition of
employment, in conformity to Section 8(a)(3) of the
Act.
WE WILL ensure that Sterling P. Newberry, III, is
made whole for any loss of pay he may have suffered
by reason of the discrimination against him.
All our employees are free to become, remain, or
refrain from becoming or remaining , members of the
above-named labor organization or any other labor
organization.
STANDARD PRESSED
STEEL CO., IFD,
APPENDIX
THE CLEVELAND
CAP SCREW
COMPANY
(Employer)
(Representative ) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days
from the date of posting and must not be altered, defaced,
or covered by any other material.
If employees have any question concerning this notice
or compliance with its provisions, they may communicate
directly with the Board ' s Regional Office , 1695 Federal
Office Building , 1240 East Ninth Street , Cleveland, Ohio
44199 , Telephone 513-522-3738.