Stevens Graphics, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 30, 2003

339 N.L.R.B. 457 (N.L.R.B. 2003)

STEVENS GRAPHICS, INC. 457
Stevens Graphics, Inc. and Graphics Communication
International Union, Local 121C. Case 10–CA–
33719
June 30, 2003
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN BATTISTA AND MEMBERS LIEBMAN
AND SCHAUMBER
On December 11, 2002, Administrative Law Judge
Lawrence W. Cullen issued the attached decision. The
General Counsel filed exceptions and a supporting brief,
and the Respondent filed an answering 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 briefs and has decided to
affirm the judge’s rulings, findings,1 and conclusions and
to adopt the recommended Order.
ORDER
The recommended Order of the administrative law
judge is adopted and the complaint is dismissed.

Gregory Powell, Esq., for the General Counsel.
James W. Wimberly Jr., Esq., for the Respondent.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
LAWRENCE W. CULLEN, Administrative Law Judge. This
case was heard before me in Birmingham, Alabama, on Octo-
ber 25, 2002. The complaint is based on a charge filed in this
case by Graphics Communication International Union, Local
121C (Local 121C or the Union). The complaint as amended at
the hearing alleges that Respondent, Stevens Graphics, Inc. (the
Respondent or the Company), violated Section 8(a)(1) and (5)
of the National Labor Relations Act (the Act). The Respondent
has by its answer, amended at the hearing, denied the commis-
sion of any violations of the Act, and has also raised a 10(b)
defense and moved in the alternative that this matter should be
deferred to arbitration.
After due consideration of the trial memorandums filed by
the General Counsel and Respondent and their arguments on
the record in the case I make the following
FINDINGS OF FACT
A. The Business of Respondent
The complaint alleges, Respondent admits, and I find that at
all times material, Respondent has been a Georgia Corporation,

1 The General Counsel has excepted to some of the judge’s credibil-
ity findings. The Board’s established policy is not to overrule an ad-
ministrative law judge’s credibility resolutions unless the clear prepon-
derance 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.
with an office and place of business in Birmingham, Alabama,
where it has been engaged in the business of commercial print-
ing, that during the past 12-month period, Respondent in con-
ducting its business operation, purchased and received at its
Birmingham, Alabama facility goods and materials valued in
excess of $50,000 directly from suppliers located outside the
State of Alabama and has been an employer engaged in com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the
Act.
B. The Labor Organization
The complaint alleges, Respondent admits, and I find that at
all times material, the Union has been a labor organization
within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
C. The Appropriate Unit
The complaint alleges, Respondent admits, and I find that at
all times material herein, the following employees of Respon-
dent have constituted a unit appropriate for collective bargain-
ing within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act:

Employees of the Company’s pressroom, preparatory and
maintenance departments.

I also find based on the evidence in the hearing the Union is
the recognized and exclusive collective-bargaining representa-
tive of the bargaining unit employees and that the Union and
the Company have been parties to a succession of collective-
bargaining agreements, the most recent of which is for the pe-
riod from April 1, 2001, to March 31, 2005.
D. The Alleged Unfair Labor Practices
The complaint alleges that Respondent violated Section
8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act. At the hearing the General Counsel
contended that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the
Act by interfering with the Section 7 rights of the bargaining
unit employees to post union-related notices on a union bulletin
board in the pressroom. The General Counsel does not cite any
case authority for the position that there is a Section 7 right to
post union-related notices on the bulletin board. Respondent
contends that there is no Section 7 right to post union-related
notices on the union bulletin board but that any such rights
must be supported by contract rights negotiated by the parties
or by the past practice of the parties. Respondent contends that
several years ago it agreed to and did set up a bulletin board in
the pressroom for the Union to post notices to employees, but
that it did not agree to an unfettered right of the Union to post
any type of notices on the bulletin board. Rather it contends it
retained the right to monitor the bulletin board to ensure that no
controversial material or material that degrades the Company is
posted.
In his opening statement General Counsel posed the issue as
“is it a violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (5) when the Respon-
dent censors union related communications and union related
postings by requiring and directing Union representatives to
remove postings on a Union designated bulletin board” in vio-
lation of the bargaining members’ Section 7 rights. This case
involves the union bulletin board in the pressroom. There is
also a company bulletin board in the pressroom. There are two
other bulletin boards used by employees. One is in the pre-
339 NLRB No. 64
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 458
pressroom and the other is in the maintenance department.
There are no violations alleged with respect to these other two
bulletin boards. Only union-related materials are posted on the
Local 121C bulletin board in the pressroom. The General
Counsel contends that newspaper clippings, letters from union
representatives, notices of union meetings, and resignations or
elections of union representatives are posted on Local 121C’s
bulletin board and that in the past bargaining unit members and
union officials have been permitted to post union-related in-
formation on 121C’s bulletin board without restriction. Gen-
eral Counsel contends that things changed in May 2002, when
the Respondent’s supervisors and agents “began to censor,
scrutinize, in essence reject, edit, and order that union-related
materials be removed from 121C’s bulletin board.” Union
Local 121C President Charles Watt was ordered to remove
union-related postings from the Union’s bulletin board in the
pressroom. The General Counsel contends that these actions by
Respondent were a material change in the terms and conditions
of employment of the bargaining unit members and that this is a
clear violation of not only Section 8(a)(1), but also Section
8(a)(5) of the Act.
In support of its case the General Counsel called Charles
Watt, the Local 121C president. Watt is a 6-year employee of
Respondent. He was involved in the negotiations for the 2001–
2005 contract. At that time he was vice president of the Union.
He has also served as a steward. Watt testified that prior to
May 2002, union-related materials were posted on the union
bulletin board without questioning by Respondent as to their
content such as correspondence from the International officers,
union-related news clippings from the union newsletter and
notices of union meetings. Some of the items were posted for
days, weeks, or in excess of 6 months. Bargaining unit mem-
bers may also post material so long as it pertains to the Union
and have done so without objections by the Company. He was
never required to obtain permission or prior approval for post-
ing the union-related material.
The complaint filed in this case as amended at the hearing
asserts that on or about May 7, 2002, and continuing to date,
Respondent has prohibited the Union from posting certain ma-
terials on a union bulletin board at Respondent’s Birmingham,
Alabama facility, and has “refused to allow the posting of pro-
tected concerted materials on the Union’s bulletin board located
in or near the Pressroom.” A letter from Union President Watt
to Plant Manager Alan Simmons dated June 21, 2001, refers to
the manning of press 90 which has been a matter of dispute
between the Union and the Company. Watt testified that prior
to May 2002, any union-related material could be placed on the
bulletin board and no questions were raised concerning its con-
tent and he was never required to obtain company approval
prior to posting material on the bulletin board. The June 21st
letter was placed on the bulletin board without incident. A
letter dated July 18, 2001, from Watt to Simmons concerns an
arbitrator’s decision regarding the electronic prepress work.
This letter was also posted without prior approval or incident.
A letter dated September 26, 2001, from Watt to Duane Ac-
kerman, chairman and chief executive of Bell South Enter-
prises, concerned an arbitration award won by the Union with
respect to members of management doing bargaining unit work.
Bell South Enterprises is the major customer of the Company
which prints the telephone directories for Bell South. In his
letter Watt states that Respondent has “chosen to mislead the
bargaining unit in prepress” and further asserts that then Plant
Manager Fred Ondrako threatened to fire him and other bar-
gaining unit employees. This letter was posted and not ques-
tioned concerning its comments but was questioned because
Watt had used the Company’s copier and paper to produce it.
Watt recopied the letter using an outside source and it was re-
posted. A newsletter by the International Union discussing a
Board ruling in favor of another Graphics Communication In-
ternational Union local in Evansville, Indiana, regarding a work
jurisdiction case item was posted without incident. In a letter
dated April 25, 2002, regarding “Manning on Press 90” from
Watt to Simmons, Watt contended the parties had bargained to
impasse over this issue. This letter was posted without inci-
dent. In a letter dated June 14, 2002, from Watt to Simmons
regarding the “Manning of Press 90” and the history of ex-
changes of proposals by the Company and the Union, Watt
contended that the parties were at an impasse regarding this
issue. Simmons reviewed this letter and did not permit Watt to
post it. In a letter dated July 2, 2002, from Simmons to Watt
regarding “Crewing of Press 90,” the Company informed the
Union, of its intention to implement “its Final Proposal.” Watt
was not allowed to post this letter. In a letter dated July 10,
2002, from Watt to Simmons regarding press 90, Watt states
that the Company’s assertion that it will implement manning
“rather than allow the arbitration process to settle this matter is
proof of the lack of cooperation Local 121C has received in this
matter.” Watt was not allowed to post this letter. In a memo to
Local 121C from Watt dated August 14, 2002, Watt asserted
that there has been a resolution of NLRB charges relating to
posting materials on the union bulletin board and that “the
Board is for the posting of union related material and informing
the union body.” This memo also states, “Please refrain from
leaving your work area to read this information, read it on
breaks and before or after your shift.” He was not allowed to
post this memo. A letter from Watt to Simmons dated May 3,
2002, regarding, “Code of Conduct or Harassment Policy”
reads as follows:

Two days ago a member of management while working in the
Pre-Press area stated that he would like to cut the fingers off
of anyone that threw away an original file. This threat was
very inappropriate considering all persons working in this
area have begged for training for over four years. This threat
also shows a lack of respect for co-workers and is also unac-
ceptable. Local 121C would like for you to consider man-
agement as part of ALL EMPLOYEES and investigate this
matter.

This letter remained on the bulletin board for only a short pe-
riod of time and Watt was then called to the office of Supervi-
sor Andy Burridge who directed him to remove it. Watt com-
plied and removed the letter from the bulletin board.
On cross-examination, Watt testified that the items which he
was allowed to post on the bulletin board were not controver-
sial, confrontational, or hostile. The newspaper clipping in-
volved another company. He was not permitted to post the
STEVENS GRAPHICS, INC. 459
June 14, 2002 letter by Simmons who reviewed it. This was
submitted to Simmons two times by Watt. Simmons initially
denied Watt’s request to post it and on the second occasion told
Watt he did not have time to review it. Watt then took this
letter back from Simmons and did not again submit it for re-
view. Watt testified he was never told that any of the materials
he was not permitted to post on the bulletin board were inaccu-
rate or confrontational. Watt testified that he was not permitted
to post the July 10, 2002 letter by the Human Resources Safety
Supervisor Dennis Adams and by Simmons who told him it had
inaccuracies in it and that it was Watt’s opinion. Watt denied
that either Adams or Simmons offered to sit down with him to
attempt to modify the letter to make it acceptable. In that letter,
he accused the Company of regressive bargaining. Watt testi-
fied that when he was denied the opportunity to post materials
on the bulletin board. He was not told that he had violated a
rule.
Plant Manager Simmons testified that the first disagreement
regarding posting on the union bulletin board occurred in late
January 2002, regarding an unfair labor practice charge against
the Company filed January 25, 2002, which was posted on the
union bulletin board in the pressroom. He told Watt it was not
appropriate. Watt agreed to take it down. Simmons contended
at the hearing that the posting had not been approved by the
Company and was confrontational, citing alleged threats by
management to the Union. Simmons told Watt that in the fu-
ture he should ask him for permission to post anything that was
of a confrontational nature, or deviated from their standard
practices. A letter dated February 6, 2002, from Union Attor-
ney Thomas D. Allison to Watt discusses the decision of an
arbitrator in a case involving the Company and the Union. In
this letter Allison asserts that the Union has been upheld on
virtually every item of contention in the case involving bargain-
ing unit work. This letter was also posted without approval by
the Company. Simmons then met with Watt in a meeting at-
tended by Department Manager Burridge and Union Represen-
tative George Shack. Simmons told Watt that the posting did
not conform to the practices of the parties, was controversial,
was an ongoing issue and specified individuals and their
employment status. Simmons told Watt to remove it and Watt
agreed. Simmons at that time, again told Watt to seek his or his
manager’s approval for future postings. In a letter dated April
25, 2002, from Watt to Simmons, Watt asserts that the Com-
pany has made no effort to meet a minimum manning require-
ment and asserts that there is an impasse in bargaining. Watt
requested permission to post this letter from his manager who
sought and received Simmons’s authorization to do so. Sim-
mons testified he did not consider anything in this letter to be
derogatory or adversarial. On May 6, 2002, Simmons received
the letter dated May 3, 2002, from Watt concerning the code of
conduct or harassment policy. The letter accused a member of
management of stating that he would like to cut the fingers off
of anyone that threw away an original file. On May 7, Sim-
mons was informed by Department Managers Burridge and
Jack Sollenberger that this letter was on the union bulletin
board in the pressroom. He instructed these managers to meet
with Watt and inform him this was not appropriate for the bul-
letin board. The Company was in the beginning stage of inves-
tigating the allegations in this letter. His understanding made
known to Watt was that inappropriate postings by Watt should
be removed and Watt should seek approval prior to posting in
the future. A letter dated April 30, 2002, from the Acting Re-
gional Director for Region 10 of the Board to Simmons in-
formed him that the charges in Stevens Graphics, Inc., Cases
10–CA–-33564 and 10–CA–33565 had been withdrawn. The
charges in that case asserted that the Company was prohibiting
the posting of copies of unfair labor practice charges on the
bulletin boards. On May 9, 2002, Watt posted a copy of the
charge in the instant case which he had filed on May 8, 2002,
which alleged that since May 7, 2002, the Company had re-
fused to allow the posting of protected concerted materials on
the Union’s bulletin board in or near the pressroom. At Sim-
mons’ instructions, Department Managers Burridge and Sollen-
berger met with Watt and informed him that this was not con-
sistent with approved postings in the plant and instructed him to
remove the charge from the bulletin board. A letter dated June
8, 2002, from Watt to Bell South CEO Duane Ackerman states:

Local 121C G.C.I.U. is currently trying to negotiate
manning for PRESS 90, STEVENS GRAPHICS
BIRMINGHAM. This press has had eight person crews
scheduled from the start although more than eight have
been used on many occasions. We are having difficulty
negotiating for we are now being told that six persons are
billed to this press and two persons are billed as extras on
the floor. This is being done by management altering the
floor data records that the MEN IN CHARGE are listing
as their crews. A review of the history of this press will
show that eight persons are needed to protect the invest-
ment BELL SOUTH has made in this equipment, for it
moves a tremendous amount of paper in a very short pe-
riod of time.
Press 90 prints 144 pages of four color at speeds of
over forty thousand per hour. Experienced pressmen are
informing you it should not be ran [sic] with the same
number of persons used on PRESS 80 WHICH RUNS 64
PAGES OF FOUR COLOR AT LESS SPEED. The
automated features of this press are to assist a person in his
or her job, not to replace them.
We are currently negotiating with persons experienced
in creative billing, not printing. This is unfair to LOCAL
121C and to the investment BELL SOUTH and its
STOCK HOLDERS have made in this press.
PRESS 90 is one of the finest directory presses in the
industry and LOCAL 121C is asking for a crew that can
help you use it to it’s full potential. [Emphasis added.]

This letter was posted by Watt without permission. Simmons
met again with Watt and instructed him to remove it which he
did. At the hearing Simmons contended that the letter alleged
fraudulent alteration of company records and implied unethical
billing practices.
A letter from Simmons to Watt dated July 2, 2002, regarding
disagreement of the parties concerning the crewing of press 90
contains the Company’s position with respect to the situation.
In this letter he notes, “the unfortunate situation of high absen-
teeism in the Pressroom.” He also notes, “the Union declined
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 460
to respond to the Company’s proposal or the Company’s nu-
merous attempts to schedule another meeting.” He also states,
“You further attempted to circumvent the grievance proce-
dure.” The letter also states that the Company intends to im-
plement its final proposal due to the lack of mutual agreement.
Watt asked Simmons for approval to post this letter and a letter
dated July 10 from Watt to Simmons. Simmons denied his
request and contended at the hearing that the posting of both
letters would not be consistent with the practice of the parties.
He specifically told Watt that the material in the July 10 letter
contained confrontational and inaccurate material and that the
claim that the Company had engaged in regressive bargaining
was not factual. He did not specify any problems with the con-
tent of the July 2 letter. He testified further that he discussed
with Watt the reasons why the letter of July 10 was inappropri-
ate and caused Safety Representative Dennis Adams to help
Watt in rewording the letter so as to make it acceptable. Watt
then approached Simmons again and said he was not going to
reword the letter.
On cross-examination Simmons testified that Respondent’s
operating instruction outlines the current practice of requiring
preapproval for postings. This policy requires serial numbering
on postings and the maintenance of an annual log and the as-
signment of a posting period. Simmons acknowledged that
none of these three requirements are met. He testified that
supervisors routinely observe the bulletin boards and if they see
something that is not appropriate they bring it to “someone’s
attention.” He testified there has not been “a history of having
a lot of confrontational or inappropriate material posted, but
when there has been its been dealt with.” Simmons has never
issued a written corrective action to Union President Watt or
disciplined him for altering or posting or removing anything on
bulletin boards. He contended at the hearing that inappropriate
or confrontational material or material that is disruptive must be
removed from the bulletin board by either the employee or the
Company. Neither the Company nor the Union have offered
any proposals in negotiations to change work rules or operating
instructions regarding the bulletin boards. On rebuttal by the
General Counsel, Union President Watt testified that prior to
the date of the hearing he has never seen this operating instruc-
tion and no supervisor has ever told him he could not post ma-
terials as a result of Respondent’s Exhibit 2.
Jerry Langham, who is currently a finishing services supervi-
sor with Respondent, was formerly a union shop chairman from
1984 to 1988 with Local Union 540, which represents the bind-
ery and shipping department employees. He testified that the
Company met with both unions jointly in 1987, concerning
bulletin boards. The Company agreed to purchase bulletin
boards with locked glass doors for the Unions to have a place to
post notices and the union representatives of both unions agreed
and there was an operating instruction prepared and Local 121C
was part of this. He testified that Local 540 posted their pen-
sion plan on their bulletin board with permission and never
sought to post anything confidential or any unfair labor prac-
tices charges or derogatory statements. He testified that it was
discussed at the meeting that the human resources manager
would have to approve all postings and the unions agreed to
this. The negotiations notes show Larry Best, Tommy Pitts,
Mike Capps, and James Gant were all Local 121C members
who attended this meeting and agreed to this procedure.
Tony Pitts also testified on behalf of the Company. He has
been a supervisor for about 2 years. He was chapel chairman of
the maintenance department for Local 121C from 1982 to 1989.
He recalls that there was some controversy about bulletin
boards, which was resolved by an agreement. He was not pre-
sent at the meeting as he was on vacation but became aware of
it in 1987 and Scott Rapp (who was then the human resources
representative), sent out an agreement to be reviewed concern-
ing the union bulletin board policy. The policy permitted the
posting by the Union on the union bulletin board of general
notices such as union meetings, Graphics Communication In-
ternational Union (GCIU) fliers, pension statements, and things
of that nature. Any controversial or derogatory items needed to
be cleared through human resources before they were posted.
The Union agreed to this.
Respondent called Fred Ondrako on its behalf. Ondrako was
formerly employed by the Company. He began his employ-
ment as a pressroom supervisor in 1982. He became produc-
tion manager in 1992 and plant manager in 1995 or 1996. He
retired in March 2000. Ondrako testified there was an operat-
ing instruction manual that contained an operating instruction
pertaining to the posting of items on bulletin boards. When
Ondrako came to work in 1982, there was no policy or organ-
ized way of posting on bulletin boards and the operating in-
struction was developed to formalize the method of posting.
The Company met with the union representatives and informed
them of the new policy and the Unions agreed. The Company
gave out a new policy and procedures which replaced the oper-
ating instruction manual but he does not believe it is in there.
During his tenure the Union did not challenge the work rule
regarding notices or the operating instruction. He testified
further that there was an occasion that a union representative
wanted to post a notice and he told the union representative this
was not in compliance with the policy and the union representa-
tive removed the item. He testified that normally postings were
cleared with the human resources department.
Analysis, Preliminary Issues
Respondent contends that the employer’s restrictions on
posting have existed for a considerable period of time and cer-
tainly beyond the 6-month limitation period for filing of an
unfair labor practice charge under the Act and that the allega-
tions are barred by Section 10(b) of the Act. I find, however,
that the evidence is not dispositive of this issue particularly as
the alleged violations of the Act are continuing. I accordingly
reject this defense.
Respondent contends also that it is willing to allow this dis-
pute to be processed through the grievance and arbitration pro-
cedure and that this case should accordingly be deferred to
arbitration, citing Collyer Insulated Wire, 192 NLRB 837, 77
(1971); National Radio Co., 198 NLRB 527 (1972); United
Technologies Corp., 268 NLRB 557 (1984). However, I find
deferral is inappropriate in this case which alleges violations of
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by the Respondent’s restriction of
postings on the bulletin board. The April 1, 2001, through
March 31, 2005 labor agreement of the parties does not address
STEVENS GRAPHICS, INC. 461
the issue of postings on the bulletin board by the Union. Thus,
there is no assurance that the alleged Section 7 rights of the
employees are covered in the contract. In United States Steel
Corp., 223 NLRB 1246, 1247 (1976), the Board held that under
Collyer, deferral is dependent on the express language of the
contract and noted that in that case there were no provisions in
the labor agreement relating to distribution of Section 7 litera-
ture. The Board thus refused to defer to the parties grievance-
arbitration procedure.
Analysis of the Merits
The facts of this case are not in substantial dispute. In 1987,
the Company met with representatives of both of its Unions and
advised them it would institute a bulletin board policy for post-
ings for the Company and the Unions. The Company would
maintain a bulletin board for its postings and the Unions would
be given bulletin boards for their postings. Local 121C’s bulle-
tin board was in an area in the pressroom, which is the room in
which most of its bargaining unit members work and all em-
ployees pass by this area as they come to and leave work. The
Company also maintained its bulletin boards in this area. Other
bulletin boards for posting by the bindery employees and for
miscellaneous postings of various kinds by employees were
posted in other areas of the plant. Both Unions agreed to the
Company’s decision to purchase bulletin boards. There was no
written agreement. However, the Company updated its operat-
ing instructions and work rules in 1988 relative to bulletin
boards and required that postings were to be approved by the
human resources department with various requirements out-
lined in the operating instructions. As noted in the testimony of
former Plant Manager Ondrako and current Plant Manager
Simmons, items were posted on bulletin boards without signifi-
cant dispute over the years. Ondrako and Simmons testified
that on occasion they removed materials from the Union Local
121C’s bulletin board, which they regarded as inappropriate
without challenge by Local 121C officials. It is undisputed that
the Company did not adhere to the various conditions and re-
quirements of its posting policies set out in its operating in-
structions and that the work rules and operating instructions
were not specifically sent to the Unions, but were available in
various areas of the plant. The General Counsel contends that
Union Local 121C posted various items without restrictions and
that there is therefore a past practice permitting the Union to
post various items without challenge. The General Counsel’s
only witness was President Watt who candidly acknowledged
he has only been an employee for 6 years. He also testified he
posted controversial items or opinions without challenge. The
General Counsel contends that Respondent has violated Section
8(a)(1) of the Act by interfering with the employees Section 7
right to maintain a union bulletin board and be permitted to post
union materials thereon without scrutiny.
There is no statutory right of unions or employees to post no-
tices or otherwise use bulletin boards on an employer’s prem-
ises, Eastex Inc., 215 NLRB 271, 272 (1974), enf. as modified
556 F.2d 1280 (5th Cir. 1977), and affd. 437 U.S. 556 (1978).
In Special Machine & Engineering, Inc., 247 NLRB 884
(1980), the Board adopted the administrative law judge’s deci-
sion in which he stated:

The right to post material on an employer’s bulletin boards
may arise out of a collective-bargaining agreement. To the
extent that the grant by an employer in a collective-bargaining
agreement of the right to utilization of bulletin boards consti-
tutes a concession, an employer may define the parameters of
its concession and may insist upon the imposition of limita-
tions, restrictions, and regulations on such rights.

In Special Machine as in the instant case there was no provi-
sion in the collective-bargaining agreement granting employees
or the Union the right to post items on the bulletin board. The
judge then proceeded to examine the past practice of the par-
ties. The past practice of the parties in the case before me does
not support the General Counsel’s assertion that the Respon-
dent has accorded the Union the unchallenged right to post
materials on the bulletin boards without scrutiny. Rather as
former Union Chapel Chairman Pitts testified, postings on the
union bulletin boards were generally limited to notices of meet-
ings and changes in union representatives but no controversial
material was posted by his Union. The testimony of Ondrako
and Simmons supports Respondent’s position that it has main-
tained the right to limit postings of controversial matters such
as the filing of the unfair labor practice charge and the postings
restricted by managers in this case which are controversial in
nature and degrade the Employer. In Overnite Transportation
Co., 307 NLRB 666, 674 (1992), the Board held that the em-
ployer had a reserved right to monitor the contents of all post-
ings to ensure they did not contain degrading or inflammatory
material. In Western Summit Flexible Packaging, 310 NLRB
45, 54 (1993), no violation of the Act by the employer was
found for its refusal to permit the posting of an unfair labor
practice charge. In the instant case the unfair labor practice
charge and the letter sent by the union official to the plant man-
ager accusing a “member of management threatening to cut off
any employees’ fingers for deleting an original file” and the
letter regarding alleged creative billing clearly are controversial
and inflammatory and were lawfully restricted by the employer.
I find the General Counsel has not established that there was a
past practice of permitting the Union to post whatever it desires
without scrutiny from the Respondent. I also find there is no
statutory right to post notices on an employer’s bulletin boards.
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. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of
Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. Respondent did not violate the Act by its restriction of
postings by the Union on the union bulletin board on Respon-
dent’s premises.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 462
On the above findings of fact and conclusions of law, and the
entire record, I issue the following recommended1

1 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
ORDER
The complaint is dismissed.

Board and all objections to them shall be deemed waived for all pur-
poses.