Steelcase, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 31, 1995

316 N.L.R.B. 1140 (N.L.R.B. 1995)

1140
316 NLRB No. 174
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
1 Respondent has excepted to some of the judge’s credibility find-
ings. The Board’s established policy is not to overrule an administra-
tive law judge’s credibility resolutions unless the clear preponder-
ance of all the relevant evidence convinces us that they are incorrect.
Standard Dry Wall Products, 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd. 188 F.2d
362 (3d Cir. 1951). We have carefully examined the record and find
no basis for reversing the findings.
2 In the absence of exceptions, we affirm the judge’s finding that
Supervisor Baar’s removing union newsletters from breakroom tables
in the panel plant did not violate Sec. 8(a)(1) of the Act.
Steelcase, Inc. and International Union, United
Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Imple-
ment Workers of America (UAW), AFL–CIO.
Cases 7–CA–35978 and 7–CA–36054
March 31, 1995
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN GOULD AND MEMBERS STEPHENS
AND TRUESDALE
On December 29, 1994, Administrative Law Judge
Richard A. Scully issued the attached decision. The
Respondent filed exceptions and a supporting brief.
The National Labor Relations Board has delegated
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 brief, and has de-
cided to affirm the judge’s rulings, findings,1 and con-
clusions2 and to adopt the recommended Order.
The Respondent excepted to the recommended
Order to the extent that it requires posting of the
Board’s notice to employees at all three of its
Kentwood, Michigan facilities, rather than just at the
two facilities at which the unfair labor practices oc-
curred. We interpret the order as the Respondent does,
but we find no merit to the exception.
The Respondent’s facilities consist of three adjoin-
ing plants, and the union organizing campaign that was
the backdrop for the unfair labor practices involved in
this proceeding encompassed all three facilities. Addi-
tionally, the January 10, 1994 memorandum from
Human Resources Director Dan Wiljanen to Hosea
Haralson and Robert Van Noller (two computer fur-
niture plant employees who were principally involved
in this case in posting and disseminating union lit-
erature) plainly states that the Respondent’s ‘‘rule’’ is
that it ‘‘does not prohibit employees from going into
non-work areas in a Steelcase plant (other than the one
where they work), outside their working hours, to post
materials in appropriate locations.’’ Further, acting
panel plant superintendent, Rich Doorn, who told
Haralson and Van Noller to leave the plant and refused
to look at a copy of the January 10 memo they pro-
duced, called the plant Employee Relations Manager
George Nelson’s office to determine if he acted im-
properly in turning the two employees away, and Nel-
son’s secretary confirmed that the policy was that em-
ployees were not permitted in plants in which they did
not work. In view of the foregoing, we agree with the
judge that the violations found herein indicate that the
Respondent failed to take the action necessary to as-
sure that supervisors were aware of and respected the
employees’ rights to which the memorandum ‘‘pays lip
service,’’ and we find that the order reasonably re-
quires the posting of the notice to employees in all
three plants. In so finding, we note that Control Serv-
ices, 314 NLRB 421 (1994), and Kinder-Care Learn-
ing Centers, 284 NLRB 509 (1987), on which the Re-
spondent relies are distinguishable in that they in-
volved multiple facilities of the employers that were
geographically separate from one another, and the un-
fair labor practices occurred at only one of the geo-
graphically distinct facilities.
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board adopts the rec-
ommended Order of the administrative law judge and
orders that the Respondent, Steelcase, Inc., Kentwood,
Michigan, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns,
shall take the action set forth in the Order.
Thomas W. Doerr, Esq., for the General Counsel.
William Fallon, Esq., of Grand Rapids, Michigan, for the Re-
spondent.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
RICHARD A. SCULLY, Administrative Law Judge. Upon
charges filed on May 23, 1994, by Robert Van Noller and
on June 13, 1994, by International Union, United Auto-
mobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of
America (UAW), AFL–CIO (the Union), on July 5, 1994, the
Regional Director for Region 7 of the National Labor Rela-
tions Board (the Board), issued a consolidated complaint al-
leging that Steelcase, Inc. (the Respondent) committed cer-
tain violations of Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act (the Act). The Respondent filed a timely answer
denying that it has committed any violation of the Act.
A hearing was held in Grand Rapids, Michigan, on Octo-
ber 12, 1994, at which all parties were given a full oppor-
tunity to participate, to examine and cross-examine wit-
nesses, and to present other evidence and argument. Briefs
submitted on behalf of the General Counsel and the Re-
spondent have been given due consideration. Upon the entire
record and from my observation of the demeanor of the wit-
nesses, I make the following
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
At all times material, the Respondent was a corporation
with an office and places of business in Kentwood, Michi-
gan, where it engaged in the manufacture, nonretail sale, and
distribution of office furnishings and related products.
1141STEELCASE, INC.
1 Hereinafter, all dates are in 1994.
2 Haralson testified that Cook is not his supervisor but he has
known him throughout the 11 years he has worked for the Respond-
ent.
During the calendar year ending December 31, 1994, the
Respondent, in the conduct of its business operations, sold
and shipped from its Kentwood, Michigan facilities goods
valued in excess of $50,000 directly to points outside the
State of Michigan. The Respondent admits, and I find, that
at all times material it has been an employer engaged in
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7)
of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The Respondent admits, and I find, that at all times mate-
rial the Union was a labor organization within the meaning
of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Background
The Respondent conducts operations in three adjoining fa-
cilities in Kentwood, Michigan, known as the computer fur-
niture, panel, and context plants. In the fall of 1993, the
Union began a campaign to organize the employees of the
three plants. Throughout each of the plants there are a num-
ber of bulletin boards which fall into two categories. One
type is only for company postings of work-related informa-
tion and job opportunities and the other is a general purpose
or miscellaneous type, which employees can use to post no-
tices advertising social events, items for sale, union meetings,
and the like. There are break areas throughout the plants
where employees are allowed to distribute literature and
which contain boxes in which such items may be placed.
During December 1993, Hosea Haralson and Robert Van
Noller, who are employees in the computer furniture plant,
were distributing and posting union literature in the panel
plant early in the morning during their nonworking hours
when they were ordered by a supervisor to stop doing so and
to leave the premises. Thereafter, pursuant to the directions
of the Respondent’s Employee Relations Manager George
Nelson, they were given what they considered to be verbal
warnings over the incident. Subsequently, they each received
a memorandum, dated January 10, 1994, from the Respond-
ent’s Director of Human Resources Dan Wiljanen, informing
them that no formal or informal disciplinary action had been
taken against them as a result of the incident and that the
Respondent does not prohibit employees from entering any
of its plants, during their nonworking hours, to post or dis-
tribute literature.
B. The April 1994 Incident
The complaint alleges that on April 19, 1994,1 an agent
of the Respondent unlawfully removed union literature from
a general purpose bulletin board in the computer furniture
plant. Hosea Haralson testified about an incident that oc-
curred on a day in April 1994, the date of which he could
not specifically recall. He was working at the setup desk in
the computer furniture plant at about 4:30 p.m., when he ob-
served Foreman Bill Cook near one of the miscellaneous bul-
letin boards located near the timeclock outside Cook’s office
in an adjacent department.2 Cook had a yellow or green
paper in his hand. After looking at the board, Cook removed
a posting from the board and posted the paper he was carry-
ing. Cook then also removed from the bulletin board a union
newsletter, which Haralson had posted there about an hour
earlier, and threw it into a wastebasket along with the other
posting he had removed. Haralson later retrieved the two
postings from the wastebasket and observed that the paper
Cook had posted was an announcement of a spaghetti dinner
which the Company was providing to employees as a reward
for meeting a production goal. Haralson testified that there
was empty space on the board after Cook posted his paper
and before he removed the union posting. Remaining on the
same board at the time were notices concerning a golf out-
ing, a boat for sale, and a tax service. He also said that prior
to this incident he was concerned about the fact that some
of the union notices he had put up in the plant had been re-
moved. He wanted to find out who was doing it and why,
but he said nothing to Cook about this incident because he
was a supervisor.
Cook testified that he had seen union literature on the mis-
cellaneous bulletin board outside his office during the
Union’s organizing campaign and that to the best of his
knowledge he had never removed any from that board. He
has on occasion removed items from the board if they had
been up there ‘‘too long.’’ He testified about an incident on
April 19 in which he found two pieces of union literature on
a company job posting bulletin board which he took down
and threw away. He also testified that he had no recollection
of posting a notice about a spaghetti dinner on any bulletin
board.
Analysis and Conclusions
I found Haralson to be a credible witness notwithstanding
his inability to remember the specific date this incident oc-
curred. His testimony about the incident was plausible, spe-
cific and detailed, describing not only the union literature
that was removed but the notice Cook posted, as well. There
is no reason to believe he was mistaken about what occurred
or which bulletin board was involved. I find the fact that he
described the miscellaneous bulletin board in question as
being ‘‘right next to’’ the timeclock, while photographs show
there is a window between them, does not, as the Respondent
contends, cast significant doubt on his credibility. In context,
it is clear that he used the timeclock as a reference point be-
cause both it and the miscellaneous bulletin board are on the
same outside wall of Cook’s office, as distinguished from a
job posting bulletin board in the vicinity which is across a
corridor and some distance away. I find that his failure to
mention the window has no bearing on the operative facts
and in no way detracts from his credibility. What is much
more significant is that he is a longtime employee who is
still in the Respondent’s employ. As such, it is unlikely that
he would fabricate such an incident. Rodeway Inn of Las
Vegas, 252 NLRB 344, 346 (1980); Gold Standard Enter-
prises, 234 NLRB 618, 619 (1978). This is particularly true
here where Haralson credibly testified that he has always re-
spected Cook and considers him ‘‘a nice guy.’’ After observ-
1142 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
3 Contrary to the Respondent’s argument, I do not consider the fact
that this is the only incident in which Cook was charged with re-
moving union literature during the campaign constitutes corrobora-
tion for his testimony that he did not do it. It is just as consistent
with an inference that this was the only time he was observed doing
it by a union supporter.
4 There is no contention that the newsletter contained anything of-
fensive or controversial. There is also no contention, nor any basis
for one, that the newsletter which had only been on the board for
an hour was there ‘‘too long.’’
5 I find the minor differences in the testimony of Haralson and
Van Noller, as to when the latter called the union representative that
day, cast no doubt on their credibility and have no bearing on the
portion of the incident alleged as a violation.
ing Cook’s demeanor while testifying, I cannot credit him
over Haralson. Cook appeared to be uncomfortable through-
out his testimony. His story about removing union literature
from a job posting board on April 19 struck me as an at-
tempt to divert the focus from his actions by suggesting that
there was union literature that was improperly posted. Even
if it happened as he says, it does not contradict Haralson’s
credible testimony as to what he observed Cook do at the
miscellaneous board.3 I find that the evidence establishes that
Cook did remove the union newsletter from the miscellane-
ous bulletin board outside his office on a date in April 1994.
There is no dispute but that the Respondent provided mis-
cellaneous or general use bulletin boards on which employ-
ees were permitted to post personal notices. Having done so,
it cannot restrict or interfere with the posting of literature
such as the union newsletter involved here. New Process Co.,
290 NLRB 704, 721 (1988); G.H. Bass & Co., 258 NLRB
140, 142–143 (1981).4 The Respondent violated Section
8(a)(1) of the Act by removing the union newsletter from the
miscellaneous bulletin board. Connecticut Color, Inc., 288
NLRB 699, 704 (1988); Honeywell, Inc., 262 NLRB 1402
(1982).
C. The May 17 Incident
The complaint alleges that on May 17 the Respondent pro-
hibited employees from distributing union literature in non-
working areas of the panel plant during nonworking time.
The evidence establishes that on that date Robert Van Noller
and Hosea Haralson entered the panel plant in the early after-
noon, prior to their shifts, to post and distribute notices of
a union meeting scheduled for May 19. While doing so, they
were approached by two supervisors, Mike Benham and
Richard Doorn. Doorn asked if they worked in the panel
plant and when they said they did not, he said he would have
to ask them to leave. When Haralson said that they had per-
mission to put up the notices, he was told that it was ‘‘not
lunchtime’’ and that they had to leave. He took out the Janu-
ary 10 memorandum from Wiljanen and asked them to read
it. Doorn declined to read the memo and said that he did not
need to read it to decide who could come into the building
and that they had to leave. He said that they could go with
him to George Nelson’s office. Haralson and Van Noller de-
clined to do so and decided to leave. They asked for the two
supervisors’ names which Van Noller wrote down. As they
were leaving, Van Noller made a telephone call to report the
incident to one of the union organizers, who suggested they
find out the specific positions Benham and Doorn held. They
walked back the way they came but when they did not see
Benham and Doorn, they left the building. These findings are
based on the credible testimony of Haralson and Van Noller
and the consistent testimony of Doorn.5
Doorn testified that Benham came to him and said that
two individuals had posted a union notice on a board outside
his office. He also asked what the company policy was con-
cerning persons who were not employees of the panel plant
being in there. Doorn told him his understanding of the pol-
icy was ‘‘if you don’t work in the plant, you shouldn’t be
in the plant.’’ He called the employee relations manager’s of-
fice and talked with Nelson’s secretary who told him she be-
lieved the policy was as he stated it. He approached Haralson
and Van Noller and when they said they did not work in the
panel plant, he asked them to leave.
Analysis and Conclusions
There is no evidence that the Respondent has a valid ‘‘no-
access rule,’’ which meets the standards set by the Board in
Tri-County Medical Center, 222 NLRB 1089 (1976). On the
contrary, the memoranda issued to Haralson and Van Noller
on January 10 make it clear that off-duty employees are al-
lowed to enter any of its plants to post or distribute materials
in nonwork areas. The action of Doorn in asking Haralson
and Van Noller to leave the panel plant on May 17 interfered
with their rights under Section 7 to communicate with other
employees concerning union activity and violated Section
8(a)(1).
The Respondent contends that there was no unlawful inter-
ference because: (1) Doorn merely asked them to leave, he
did not force them to do so and he invited them to go to
Nelson’s office to resolve the matter; (2) they had already
distibuted their literature to 75 percent of the building and
since they were not escorted out they could have completed
their distribution; (3) their activity was not protected because
they posted literature on a board reserved for company com-
munications and they entered a working area and talked to
employees who were working; (4) the supervisors’ conduct
was not prompted by antiunion motives; (5) they were
promptly informed that they had a right to be in the plant
to distribute the literature; and (6) employees have distrib-
uted massive quantities of union literature during the orga-
nizing campaign without interference. I find that none of
these arguments can justify or excuse the interference with
the employees’ rights that occurred in this incident.
I find it makes no difference whether Doorn ‘‘asked’’ or
‘‘ordered’’ the employees to leave. He was a supervisor who,
in effect, told them they were not allowed to be in the panel
plant and could not remain there. The coercive effect of such
a statement is obvious and they ignored it at their peril, par-
ticularly, when the supervisor would not even look at the
document they proffered as evidence that they were entitled
to be there. The invitation to go to Nelson’s office in no way
lessened the interference. They were there to distribute lit-
erature, not to debate, and since they understood Nelson was
responsible for the the warnings they initially received as a
result of a similar distribution in December 1993, there was
little reason to involve him. The arguments, that they had al-
ready distributed their literature to 75 percent of the plant
1143STEELCASE, INC.
6 Benham, the alleged eyewitness, was not called to testify and his
absence was not explained. I infer that his testimony would not have
supported the Respondent’s position. International Automated Ma-
chines, 285 NLRB 1122, 1123 (1987).
7 If he was really concerned about unauthorized persons being in
the plant, it is reasonable to assume that he would have taken some
action to assure that they left or were removed.
and could have distributed the rest once they were out of
Doorn’s sight, require little comment. The Respondent had
no right to determine or to limit how wide their distribution
should be and one of the reasons for the protections afforded
by the Act is so that they don’t have to sneak around to ex-
ercise their rights.
The Respondent has not established that this distribution
was not protected by Section 7. I find Doorn’s hearsay testi-
mony that Benham told him they ‘‘had posted stuff on his
board’’ is insufficient to establish that they did so or that the
board was restricted to company communications.6 It also
fails to establish that they engaged in conduct so egregious
as to forfeit the protection of the Act. It is noteworthy that
Doorn said nothing about this alleged offense at the time he
confronted them. Supervisor Wendy Kremers testified that,
10 minutes or more after the incident, she saw two people,
who fit the description Doorn had given her of the ones he
had asked to leave the building, still there and talking to peo-
ple who ‘‘should have been working.’’ I find this testimony
is irrelevant and another attempt by the Respondent to shift
the focus of this inquiry away from its actions. What the em-
ployees may have or have not done after being intercepted
by Doorn and ‘‘asked’’ to leave has no bearing on the issue
under consideration—whether the Respondent unlawfully
interfered with their right to distribute union literature in the
panel plant. I have found that the evidence does not establish
that they did anything prior to the point at which Doorn con-
fronted them that was even arguably improper or would war-
rant his doing so. The evidence is that he did so only be-
cause he mistakenly believed they should not have been in
the plant.
The Respondent contends that there is no evidence that
Doorn was motivated by antiunion considerations when he
confronted Haralson and Van Noller, but was acting on a
good belief that they should not be in the plant. That is open
to question given his testimony that he has not challenged
everyone he has seen in the plant that he did not recognize,
his refusal to even look at the Wiljanen memorandum the
employees offered him, and the fact that, once he asked them
to leave, he made no effort to see if they actually had done
so.7 I find this suggests he was more interested in hassling
them than in enforcing a company policy. In any event, it
doesn’t matter, since the employer’s motivation is not rel-
evant in determining whether there has been a violation in
a case such as this. Honeywell, Inc., supra; Arkansas-Best
Freight System, 257 NLRB 420, 422–423 (1981).
There is evidence that Haralson and Van Noller went back
into the panel plant the following day and posted notices
without interference after being told by a representative of
the Union that they could do so. Supervisor Gary Baar testi-
fied that on May 18 or 19 he encountered two individuals
distributing literature, one of which they had posted on his
office where he posts company notices only. He removed it
and gave it back to them and told them they could leave the
literature in break areas but could not post it on his office.
The Respondent contends that this effectively countered any
interference they might have previously experienced. I do not
agree. The evidence shows that they returned to the panel
plant because a union representative told them they could.
There is no evidence that any representative of the Respond-
ent informed them or the employees in general that their
being asked to leave the previous day was an error or would
not happen again. Even assuming that it was Haralson and
Van Noller who encountered Baar on May 18, the fact that
he did not interfere with their lawful activities and acknowl-
edged their right to distribute literature does not serve to ‘‘ef-
fectively cure’’ the interference to which they were subjected
on the previous day. It shows only that Baar was apparently
more aware of the employees’ rights than Doorn was. Baar
was not Doorn’s superior and there was no evidence that the
Respondent or Doorn has ever acknowledged that his actions
on May 17 were improper or that the Respondent has ever
undertaken to effectively inform its supervisors what its poli-
cies concerning distribution of literature and access to its
plants actually are. On the contrary, the evidence shows that,
between December 1993 and May 1994, it failed to take the
action necessary to assure that all of its supervisors were
aware of and respected the employees’ rights to which the
Wiljanen memorandum pays lip service. The fact that, in this
instance, the interference with those rights was repeated in
almost identical fashion by a different supervisor precludes
a finding that it should be overlooked as ‘‘de minimus.’’ Fi-
nally, the fact that the evidence shows that in many instances
the Respondent did not interfere with its employees’ rights
does not exonerate it from responsibility for the interference
involved here.
D. The May 19 Incident
Panel plant employee David Livingston testified that, on
May 19, at about 9 a.m., he observed Supervisor Gary Baar
pick up some union newsletters that were on the tables of
a break area. However, he did not observe what Baar did
with those materials. Baar testified that at the time of this
incident he was responsible for seeing that the break area in
his work area was kept clean. During the organizing cam-
paign, he observed union literature on the tables and in dis-
tribution boxes in the break area. He said that he never dis-
turbed union literature that was stacked up or in the box, but
that he has picked up and thrown away such materials as
well as others that were on tables, chairs, or the floor and
appeared to have been discarded. He also said that on occa-
sion he has picked up union literature to read it and to pass
it along to Nelson. The complaint alleges that Baar’s actions
on May 19 violated the Act.
Analysis and Conclusions
While I credit Livingston’s testimony as to what he ob-
served on May 19, I find it does not establish that Baar acted
unlawfully. Livingston saw Baar pick up an unspecified
number of the union newsletters that were on tables in the
break area but did not see what he did with them. Baar’s
credible testimony was that he has picked up union literature
that appeared to have been used and discarded while in the
process of meeting his responsibility to keep the break area
clean and also in order to read or provide a copy of such
materials to the employee relations office. There is no evi-
1144 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
8 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the
Board’s Rules and Regulations, the findings, conclusions, and rec-
ommended 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 purposes.
9 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
National 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.’’
dence that he has removed such literature from the distribu-
tion box in the break area or when it was stacked up on ta-
bles for distribution. The mere fact that he picked up such
material does not establish a violation. By making such ma-
terials available to the entire plant population, it must be as-
sumed that the Union expected and probably wanted them to
be read by all employees including supervisors. I find it that
Baar’s taking a copy of such literature to read or to provide
to another company official does not interfere with employee
rights. In this instance, it appears that he was performing a
housekeeping function by removing literature that had been
removed from the distribution box or stacks on the tables and
had been discarded after use. I find the evidence does not es-
tablish a violation of the Act. Page Avjet, Inc., 278 NLRB
444, 450 (1986).
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Respondent, Steelcase, Inc., is an employer en-
gaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6),
and (7) of the Act.
2. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning
of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. The Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by
removing union literature from a general purpose bulletin
board during April 1994 and by interfering with the distribu-
tion of union literature in its panel plant on May 17, 1994.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section
2(6) and (7) of the Act.
5. The Respondent did not engage in unfair labor practices
not specifically found herein.
THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1)
of the Act, I shall recommend that it be ordered to cease and
desist therefrom and to take certain affirmative action de-
signed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on
the entire record, I issue the following recommended8
ORDER
The Respondent, Steelcase, Inc., Kentwood, Michigan, its
officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Removing union-related materials from bulletin boards
which are otherwise available for general use by employees.
(b) Interfering with the distribution of union-related mate-
rials by off-duty employees in nonworking areas of its plants.
(c) In any like or related manner interfering with, restrain-
ing, or coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guar-
anteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to ef-
fectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Post at its facilities in Kentwood, Michigan, copies of
the attached notice marked ‘‘Appendix.’’9 Copies of the no-
tice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region
7, after being signed by the Respondent’s authorized rep-
resentative, shall be posted by the Respondent immediately
upon receipt and maintained for 60 consecutive days in con-
spicuous places including all places where notices to employ-
ees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken
by the Respondent 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 Respondent has
taken to comply.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the consolidated complaint is
dismissed insofar as it alleges violations of the Act not spe-
cifically 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 vio-
lated the National Labor Relations Act and has ordered us
to post and abide by this notice.
WE WILL NOT remove union-related materials from bul-
letin boards which are otherwise available for the general use
of employees.
WE WILL NOT interfere with the distribution of union-relat-
ed materials in our plants by off-duty employees in nonwork-
ing areas.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with,
restrain, or coerce you in the exercise of the rights guaran-
teed you by Section 7 of the Act.
STEELCASE, INC.