The Monarch Machine Tool Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 11, 1953

102 N.L.R.B. 1242 (N.L.R.B. 1953)

1242 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Thereafter, the Employer and the Petitioner submitted briefs oppos-
ing and supporting, respectively, the hearing officer's report and rec-
ommendation?
Upon the record of the hearing on objections, we find no reason to
reject the hearing officer's credibility findings.
We find, in accordance with the' recommendations of the hearing
officer, that the Employer's objection No. 1 does not raise substantial
and material issues regarding the conduct of the election. Accord-
ingly, as a tally of ballots shows that a majority of all valid votes
counted have been cast for the Petitioner, we shall certify that organi-
zation as the collective bargaining representative of the Employer's
employees in the unit heretofore found appropriate.
Certification of Representatives
IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED that United Furniture Workers of America,
CIO, has been designated and selected by a majority of all production
and maintenance employees of the Atlantic Furniture Products Co.,
Inc., at its Baltimore, Maryland, plant, excluding office and clerical
employees, guards, watchmen, professional employees, and supervisors
as defined in the Act, as their representative for purposes of collective
bargaining and that, pursuant to Section 9 (a) of the Act, the said
organization is the exclusive representative of all such employees for
the purposes of collective bargaining with respect to rates of pay,
wages, hours of employment, and other conditions of employment.
MEMBERS HOUSTON and MURDOCK took no part in the considera-
tion of the above Supplemental Decision and Certification of
Representatives.
2 The Employer 's request for oral argument is hereby denied as the records and brief
adequately present the positions of the parties.
THE MONARCH MACHINE TOOL Co. and LOCAL 776, UNITED ELECTRICAL,
RADIO & MACHINE WORKERS OF AMERICA, INDEPENDENT . Case No.
8-CA-70. February 11, 1953
Decision and Order
On December 10, 1952, Trial Examiner David London issued his
Intermediate Report 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 copy of the Inter-
102 NLRB No. 134.
THE MONARCH MACHINE TOOL CO. 1243
mediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the Respondent filed
exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a supporting brief.'
The Board 2 has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made
at the hearing and finds that no perjudicial error was committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Inter-
mediate Report, the Respondent's exceptions and brief, and the entire
record in this case, and hereby adopts the Trial Examiner's findings,
conclusions, and recommendations.
Order
Upon the entire record in this case, and pursuant to Section 10 (c)
of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board hereby orders that the Respondent, The Monarch
Machine Tool Co., it officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Enforcing its rule prohibiting the circulation of union peti-
tions and the distribution of union literature in its parking lot during
the employees' nonworking time.
(b) Enforcing its rule against the solicitation of union membership
on company property during the employees' nonworking time.
(c) Engaging in any like or related acts or conduct which interferes
with, restrains, or coerces its employees in the exercise of their right
to self-organization, to form labor organizations, to join or assist
Local 776, United Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers of America,
Independent, or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively
through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in con-
certed activities for the purposes of collective bargaining or other
mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any and all such activities
except to the extent that such rights may be affected by an agreement
requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of em-
ployment, as authorized in Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Rescind immediately its rule prohibiting the circulation of
union petitions and the distribution of union literature upon the
Respondent's parking lot during the employees' nonworking time.
(b) Rescind immediately its rule prohibiting the solicitation of
union membership on plant property during the employees' non-
working time.
1 The Respondent's request for oral argument is hereby denied because the record and
the Respondent' s exceptions and brief , in our opinion , adequately present the issues and the
positions of the parties.
s Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act , the Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this case to a three -member panel [Members Houston, Styles,
and Peterson].
1244 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(c) Post at its plant in Sidney, Ohio, copies of the notice attached
to the Intermediate Report and marked "Appendix A." 8 Copies of
said notice , to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Eighth
Region , shall, after being duly signed by the Respondent 's representa-
tive, be posted by the Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof,
and maintained by it for a period of sixty (60) consecutive days there-
after in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to em-
ployees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by
the Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced,
or covered by any other material.
(d) Notify the Regional Director for the Eighth Region, in writing,
within ten (10) days from the date of this Order, what steps the
Respondent has taken to comply therewith.
8 This notice , however, shall be, and it hereby is, amended by striking from the first
paragraph thereof the words "Recommendations of a Trial Examiner " and substituting in
lieu thereof the words "A Decision and Order." In the event that this order is enforced
by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals , there shall be substituted for the words
"Pursuant to a Decision and Order" the words "Pursuant to a Decree of the United States
Court of Appeals, Enforcing an Order."
Intermediate Report
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon charges filed August 20, 1952, by Local 776, United Electrical , Radio &
Machine Workers of America, Independent , herein called the Union , the General
Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board issued a complaint against The
Monarch Machine Tool Co., herein called Respondent or the Company , alleging
that Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) and Section 2 ( 6) and ( 7) of the
National Labor Relations Act, 61 Stat 136, herein called the Act. Copies of
the charge , complaint , and notice of hearing were duly served upon the appro-
priate parties.
With respect to the unfair labor practices , the complaint , as amended at the
hearing, alleged that, in violation of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act, Respondent
(a) from on or about February 1, 1952, to date, has prevented and
attempted to prevent said Union and its members who were employed [in
its plant ], from circulating or distributing among the employees of said
plant in the Respondent 's main parking lot , petitions , pamphlets , literature
and other written or printed matter , which the said Union considered advis-
able, expedient or necessary to circulate and distribute in the exercise of its
rights under Section 7 of the Act.
(b) On or about March 26, 1952, placed in effect, and since that date has
continuously enforced , the following rule against said Union , other unions
and employee partisans of unions : "There shall be no distribution or circu-
lation of literature , petitions , or written or printed matter of any descrip-
tion on any of the company's premises."
(c) In the year 1946 placed in effect, and since on or about February 1,
1952, has enforced and attempted to enforce , the following rule against said
Union, other unions and employee partisans of unions : "Use of company
property-The promotion in the shop by employees of outside interests of
THE MONARCH MACHINE TOOL CO . 1245
a social, business, religious, trade or political nature is prohibited. The use
of a company property for any such purposes is not allowed. Likewise, the
working of employees for themselves in the factory is prohibited."
Plant solicitations-No petition, solicitation or subscription for flowers,
presents, or any other purpose will be allowed unless first approved by the
department superintendent.
By its answer Respondent admitted "that from on or about February 1, 1952,
to date it has attempted to prevent said Union from circulating or distributing,
among the employees of said plant in the Respondent's main parking lot petitions,
pamphlets , literature and other written or printed matter ." Respondent also
admitted that it has attempted to enforce the rules pleaded in the complaint
as aforementioned but denied that it committed any unfair labor practices as
alleged.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held on October 24, 25, and 26, 1952, at
Sidney, Ohio, before the undersigned Trial Examiner. All parties appeared,
were represented by counsel or other representative, and were afforded full op-
portunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, to argue orally
at the conclusion of the evidence, and to file briefs. The General Counsel and
Respondent presented oral argument and since the close of the hearing, Respond-
ent filed a brief which has been duly considered.
Upon the entire record in the case and from my observation of the witnesses,
I make the following :
FINDINGS Or FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT
Respondent is an Ohio corporation engaged in the manufacture of metal turn-
ing lathes at its Sidney, Ohio, plant. In the course and conduct of its business
operations at said plant, Respondent annually causes to be shipped in excess of
$1,000,000 worth of its finished products from its plant to points outside the
State of Ohio. Respondent admits, and I find, that it is engaged in commerce
within the meaning of the Act.
U. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Local 776, United Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers of America, Independ-
ent, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Description of the premises and sequence of events
Respondent's plant, operated by 1,600 to 1,650 production and maintenance
employees, is located approximately seven-tenths of a mile from "the public
square" in Sidney, Ohio, a town having a population of approximately 12,000
inhabitants. About half of Respondent's employees reside outside the town
limits and at various distances within a radius of 50 miles. The town has no
public transportation system other than taxicabs. Employees, except those
living within walking distance, reach and leave the plant by private automobiles
for which Respondent has provided private parking lot facilities. Prior to
November 8, 1951, a substantial number of employees were provided such accom-
modations on a lot known as the South parking lot, south of and adjacent to the
plant. On that date, the Company opened its West parking lot with a capacity
of 721 cars. Respondent thereafter discontinued the use of the South parking
lot and erected an addition to its shop thereon.
1246 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The West parking lot with which we are concerned, hereafter referred to
merely as the parking lot, is located west of the plant and separated therefrom
by railroad tracks of the B & 0 Railroad . It is entirely within company property
lines and is completely fenced , except for gate entrances . The only ingress to
the plant from the parking lot is by means of a pedestrian bridge leading from
approximately the center of the east border of the parking lot, over the railroad
tracks, to the west entrance to the plant . Except in case of emergency , automo-
bile entrance to, and exit from, the parking lot is permissible only through two
gate entrances, approximately 20 feet wide, known as the South gate and the
North gate. Traffic to these gates is brought from two main arteries-from
Michigan Avenue to the South gate, and from Park Street to the North gate.
Entrance to the South gate from Michigan Avenue, which runs in an easterly
and westerly direction, is obtained by travel on Linden Avenue, approximately
18 feet wide, running in a northerly and southerly direction from Michigan
Avenue, approximately 450 feet distant. The North gate borders directly on
Park Street which runs east and west. Michigan Avenue, used not only for
city traffic but also as a designated State highway, has a hard surfaced roadway
approximately 30 feet wide. Park Street, used by city traffic, has a similar
roadway about 25 feet wide.
For some time past, Respondent has employed three 8-hour shifts-7 a. m. to
3 p. m.; 3 p. in. to 11 p. in.; and 11 p. in. to 7 a. in. Late in August 1952, when
the plant employed about 1,600 production and maintenance employees , a count
of automobiles and their occupants entering or leaving the lot 1 hour prior to the
beginning, or after the close, of each shift was made. The count disclosed that
during such 3 hourly periods 275 automobiles, carrying 510 occupants, entered
the North gate, and 340 automobiles, containing 641 occupants. entered the South
gate, most of them concentrated in periods of 15 to 20 minutes prior to the
beginning of each shift. The remaining 550 employees entered through the
front entrance to the plant on Oak Street, or came by foot and entered either the
North or South gates and then proceeded to the plant by means of the bridge
crossing the railroad tracks.
Prior to the Union 's certification in 1945, Respondent 's production and main-
tenance employees had no union to represent them. In 1933 Respondent pro-
mulgated, inter alia, the following rules for its employees, which rules were in-
corporated in subsequent manuals published and circulated by the Company in
1941, 1942, and 1946:
The promotion in the shop by employees of outside interests of a social,
business, religious, trade or political nature is prohibited. The use of com-
pany property for any such purpose is not allowed.
No subscriptions for flowers, presents, or any other purpose will be allowed
unless first approved by the department superintendent.
Factory bulletin boards are intended as an official means of communicat-
ing information that concerns every employee . . . it is important that you
read each notice as soon as it is posted.
The first contract between Respondent and the Union was executed on May
3, 1945. It recognized the Union as bargaining representative of Respondent's
production and maintenance employees, contained a maintenance-of-membership
and checkoff clause, and also the following provisions :
There shall be no collection of dues or solicitation of employees during
working hours. . . . The Union shall be allowed the use of five glass-
enclosed bulletin boards for the posting of notices of union meetings , social
THE MONARCH MACHINE TOOL CO . 1247
activities, and for other non-controversial matters subject however, to the
condition that all such notices to be first submitted to and approved by the
company before posting.
Similar provisions were found in the contracts executed May 16, 1946, May 16,
1947, and May 16, 1948, except that the last of these contracts omitted the provi-
sion with respect to maintenance of membership.
The current contract,' executed May 24, 1950, has a 3-year term and provides
for automatic yearly renewals "unless either party desires to change." It con-
tains a union-shop clause, the same provision for five bulletin boards found in the
earlier contracts and also establishes machinery for the disposition of grievances.
However, it does not contain the prohibition against solicitation of union mem-
bership during working hours found in the earlier contracts.
Prior to November 8, 1951, and while employees were using the South parking
lot, union workers, whenever they found occasion to do so, took their posts at the
north end thereof near the door forming the south entrance to the plant and there
distributed circulars and leaflets pertaining to union activities. Similar distri-
butions took place on company property at the front entrance of the plant on Oak
Street. During inclement weather, however, the distributions were made just
inside these entrances. The distribution at both places was made in the pres-
ence of guards and foremen who not only refrained from objecting thereto, but on
a number of occasions, during bad weather, invited the distributors to carry on
their work inside the entrance. After the West parking lot was opened and until
about February 22, 1952, principal distribution of union literature and circulars
was made by Respondent's employees in, or closely adjacent to, the vestibule
entrance of the plant located at the east end of the bridge over the railroad
tracks where it was likewise observed by guards and supervisors without
objection.
On February 22, 1952, Eugene L. Knoop, a union committeeman, and other
union supporters stationed themselves at the location last described and there
solicited the signatures of Respondent's employees to a petition addressed to
the Wage Stabilization Board asking that body to approve and expedite action
on a proposed wage increase then pending before that Board. During the day,
but on different occasions, plant guards told those engaged in that task to get
off the Company's property, that they were not allowed to engage in such ac-
tivity and were breaking the Company's rules. Notwithstanding the admonition
of the guards, the men continued their task that day, but moved their activities
to the parking lot side of the bridge. Circulation of union literature was con-
tinued there until about March 18 or 19, when one Davis was discharged by
Respondent for an undisclosed cause . As a result of that discharge, a work
stoppage occurred. On March 26 agreement was reached to have the employees
return to work. On the same day the Company published the following notice:
"There shall be no distribution or circulation of literature, petitions, or written
or printed matter of any description on any of the Company's premises." On
March 28 the Union agreed "not to circulate literature in the company' s parking
lot or on company premises until the issue of the right to do so was decided by
the National Labor Relations Board." From March 26 to the date of the
hearing, union literature has been circulated among employees using the parking
lot only outside the North and South gates of that lot, beyond the Company's
property line.
1 The May 16 , 1948, contract was for a 2 -year term.
1248 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
B. Concluding findings
The underlying issue here is the proper accommodation between Respondent's
right to control the use of its property,' and the right of its employees to exercise
the rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act .3 Neither right is absolute.
"It is not every interference with property rights that is within-the Fifth Amend-
ment. . . . Inconvenience and even some dislocation of property rights may be
necessary in order to safeguard the right of collective bargaining." N. L. R. B. v.
Cities Service Oil Company, 122 F. 2d 149, 152 (C. A. 2) ; N. L. R. B. v. Jones and
Laughlin Steel Corporation, 301 U. S. 1, 43, 44. Similarly, employees are not
free to exercise their guaranteed rights in any manner, time, or place they
choose. Reasonable encroachments and limitations have been imposed on both
employer and employees in order to make effective the purposes of the Act and
the guarantees contained therein.
"It is clear, however, that employees cannot realize the benefits of the right
to self-organization guaranteed them by the Act, unless there are adequate
avenues of communication open to them whereby they may be informed or
advised as to the precise nature of their rights under the Act and of the ad-
vantages of self-organization, and may have opportunity for the interchange of
ideas necessary to the exercise of their right to self-organization." LeTourneau
Company of Georgia, 54 NLRB 1253, 1260.
1. Activities in the Parking Lot
The right to distribute union literature on company property has been pre-
sented to the Board and the courts in various situations and has been resolved
by varying conclusions. Thus, in Tabin-Picker and Company, 50 NLRB 928,
which involved the distribution of union literature inside the plant , the Board
concluded that "in the interest of keeping the plant clean and orderly, it is not
unreasonable for an employer to prohibit the distribution of literature on plant
premises at all times." That doctrine has been consistently adhered to ever
since
It was recognized , however, that the considerations which prompted the Board
to withhold condemnation of the rule against distribution inside a plant, has no
persuasive effect when employers seek to prohibit such distribution on company-
owned parking lots. In the latter situation, the Board, in LeTourneau, supra,
held that an employer "in applying its `no-distributing' rule to the distribution
of union literature by its employees on its parking lots, has placed an unreason-
able impediment on the freedom of communication essential to the exercise of
its employees' rights to self-organization." In approving the Board's rationale
in that case, the Supreme Court held that such a rule may not be enforced "in
the absence of evidence that special circumstances make the rule necessary in
order to maintain production or discipline." LeTourneau Company v. N L. R. B.,
324 U. S. 793, 803, footnote 10. It is within the doctrines laid down by the
Board in LeTourneau, as approved by the Supreme Court, that the instant case
must be decided.
In its brief, Respondent summarizes the "special circumstances" upon which
it relies and the reasons for which it imposed the prohibition against distribu-
2 During the hearing and in its brief, Respondent referred to the Union' s case of the
parking lot as a "confiscation" of the Company's property.
2 "Employees shall have the right to self-organization, to form, to join, or assist labor
organizations, . . . and to engage in other concerted activities for the purposes of collec-
11tive bargaining or other mutual aid or protection... .
* Monolith Portland Cement Co., 94 NLRB 1358, 1366 and cases cited in footnote 81
therein.
THE MONARCH MACHINE TOOL CO. 1249
tion upon its parking lot as follows : "To keep the plant clean and orderly, to
preserve discipline ... [and because] distribution of union literature beyond the
company property is possible, effective and not hazardous."
The Company concedes that even if the rule which it seeks to impose were en-
forced, the littering problem would be relieved only "to a certain degree." In
any event, while the desire and need to keep the plant "clean and orderly" is
a legitimate reason for imposing such a rule inside the plant, the cases pre-
viously cited have definitely established that these considerations must give
way when it is sought to impose such a rule in parking lots. Furthermore, the
"clean and orderly" argument certainly cannot be relied on to sustain the pro-
hibition against the solicitation of signatures to petitions as was the case on
February 22, as heretofore detailed.' The notice posted by Respondent on that
day made no complaint of littering, or even that the petition in any way inter-
fered with discipline or production. It merely advised the employees that
"management views the deliberate soliciting [of signatures to the petition] on
company premises . . . as a breach of faith not consistent with our long
history of good employee relations."
Nor is there any merit to the suggested justification as a special circumstance
that "harsh feelings and consequences . . . might result if employee partisans of
three unions' attempted to distribute literature at the Company bridge at the
same time." Though the three unions in question had apparently been so en-
gaged at the gate entrances for several months, no evidence of any disturbance
or untoward incident was offered. It must, therefore, be presumed that there
is no problem of discipline in this respect, as Respondent pleads.
We turn next to the alleged special circumstance-"that employees have
adequate means of communication with other employees-the Union meeting
hall, newspaper announcements, mailing lists, the bulletin boards provided
by the Company. . . ." It certainly does not lie in the mouth of Respondent
to tell the Union, or Respondent's employees, how to exercise their rights under
the Act. For them it is sufficient that the means resorted to are within the
law. "It is no answer to suggest that other means of disseminating union
literature are not foreclosed." The LeTourneau Company, supra.
Equally without merit as a special circumstance invoked by Respondent
is its contention that distribution outside the Company gates is "effective and
not hazardous." As the earlier description of the parking lot discloses, almost
all the traffic entering the South gate comes down a straightway on Linden
Avenue from Michigan avenue, a State highway, approximately 450 feet distant
from that gate. Drivers frequently approach that gate entrance at high speed
and when weather conditions make traction difficult, the automobiles skid
past or dangerously close to those who seek to stop vehicles for the purpose of
circularizing the cars' occupants. The hazard to those engaged in that task
is increased when darkness sets in. An additional impediment to effective
distribution of union literature exists at the North gate opening directly on
Park street, which runs in an easterly and westerly direction. When union
workers stop cars on the crosswalk just outside that gate, traffic is jammed
in both directions on Park street. As an additional result, irritation has
frequently been aroused among those whose entrance into the plant has been
delayed, causing them to hastily drive through the gate without stopping and
with danger to those who seek to distribute literature. And, when the weather
' D. H. McKellar , Respondent's vice president in charge of industrial relations , testified
that he considered the prohibitions imposed as "blanket" prohibition, including petitions.
For approximately 6 months prior to the hearing , both the CIO and the AFL were
also circularizing Respondent 's employees in their respective drives for membership.
1250 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
is inclement, only about 50 percent of the cars stop at either gate to permit
distribution of leaflets, etc.
On the entire record I find that the "circulation of union petitions, literature,
and pamphlets," cannot readily be conducted away from Respondent's premises,
and that its rule (prohibiting their circulation), at least insofar as it affects
Respondent's parking lots adjacent to its plant, constitutes an unreasonable
impediment to the freedom of communication essential to the exercise of its
employees' rights to self-organization in violation of Section 8 (a) (1) of the
Act.7
2. Activities in the cafeteria
For some time Respondent has been working three 8-hour shifts. No specific
lunch or rest periods are prescribed and employees are allowed to eat their lunch
either at their posts, or in the Company's cafeteria having a seating capacity
for approximately 300 diners. All employees are nevertheless paid for the full
8-hour period, including the time allowed for lunch. Though the Company's
counsel stated during the hearing, and McKellar testified, that "solicitation for
union membership can be made on Company premises during nonworking
time," 8 Respondent made it clear that it would not permit its employees to
solicit union membership while engaged in eating lunch.
While the Company concedes that it is well established that an employer may
not enforce a rule which prohibits solicitation of union membership on company
property during nonworking hours, it contends that here "there is no nonworking
time, during the paid lunch period, except that time devoted exclusively to the
act of eating." A similar contention was overruled in I. P. Sales Company, 82
NLRB 137, enf. 188 F. 2d 931 (C. A. 6), where the Board held that "application
of the Respondent's no-solicitation rule to [paid] lunch periods when employees
may properly be away from their places of work is in itself unlawful."
Respondent seeks to distinguish the Sales case on the ground that the Board
there characterized the paid lunch period as one in which employees were
"free . . . to assemble, to eat or talk," while here, it urges, that nonworking
time was to be "devoted exclusively to the act of eating." The distinction is not
well taken. While it is true that the Board characterized the paid lunch period
as one in which employees were "free . . . to assemble, to eat or talk," the find-
ings on which that characterization or conclusion is based merely establish
that the period in question was a paid lunch period. From that fact alone, the
Board realistically assumed that there was also the right to talk. It would be
utterly fantastic to assume that Respondent would provide a cafeteria capable
of serving 300 employees and expect them not to carry on any conversation.
Presumably there would be no objection to a discussion of athletic affairs or cur-
rent events between mouthfuls, while engaged in "the act of eating." If, how-
7 Caldwell Furniture Company, 97 NLRB 11501, enfd. by a per curiam opinion, 199 F. 2d
267 (C. A. 4). LeTourneau Company, supra; United Aircraft Corporation, 67 NLRB 594;
Carolina Mills, Inc., 92 NLRB 1141, enfd. by a per curiam, 190 F. 2d 675 (C A. 4) ;
N L. If. B. v. Lake Superior Lumber Company, 167 F. 2d 147, 151, 152 (C. A. 6) ; The
Maryland Drydock Company, 88 NLRB 1305, enforcement denied on another ground,
183 F. 2d 538 (C. A. 4).
8 At the hearing this concession was limited to a time when "the question of representa-
tion is open." In its brief, however, no significance is attributed to the time of the
solicitation, 1. e., whether or not a question of representation is pending . This may be
due to the fact that the records of the Board disclose that a petition for an election
(8-RC-1839) was filed by the CIO on October 29, 1952, and is presently pending before
the Board. In any event, Respondent has not cited, nor have I been able to find, any
cases holding that the rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act may only be exercised
.when the question of representation is open."
THE MONARCH MACHINE TOOL CO . 1251
ever, Respondent under such circumstances should prohibit the discussion of
union affairs, or the solicitation of union membership, such forbiddance would
clearly establish a discriminatory application of its rule and be equally violative
of the Act. On the entire record I find that by its prohibition against the so-
licitation of union membership in the cafeteria, during nonworking hours, Re-
spondent violated Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
3. The collection of dues
In his closing argument , the General Counsel urged that the Company had
violated the Act by prohibiting the collection of union dues in the plant during
nonworking time. No such issue was raised by the complaint nor does the evi-
dence establish that such a prohibition was imposed . In its brief , Respondent
asserts "that the rules presently in force do not prohibit union stewards from
collecting dues on nonworking time ." Under all the circumstances , no findings
on this subject are made.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of Respondent set forth in section III, above, occurring in con-
nection with its operations described 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 commerce and the
free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices,
it will be recommended that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain
affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
Having found that Respondent has denied the use of its parking lot to its
employees for the purpose of circulating petitions and the distribution of union
literature, and has prohibited solicitation of union membership on its premises
in nonworking time, it will be recommended that Respondent cease and desist
from the unfair labor practices found and from any like or related acts or con-
duct which would tend to interfere with, restrain, or coerce its employees in the
exercise of the rights guaranteed under Section 7 of the Act.
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and upon the entire record in the
case, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent The Monarch Machine Tool Co. is engaged in commerce within
the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
2. Local 776, United Electrical Radio & Machine Tool Workers of America,
Independent, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section " (5) of the
Act.
3. By denying its employees the use of its parking lot for the circulation of
union petitions and the distribution of union literature during the nonworking
time of its employees, and by denying its employees the privilege of soliciting
union membership on its property during nonworking time, Respondent has en-
gaged, and is engaging, in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section
8 (a) (1) of the Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting
commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
[Recommendations omitted from publication in this volume.]
1252 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Appendix A
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the Recommendations of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, we hereby notify our employees that :
WE WILL cease and desist from enforcing our rule prohibiting the circula-
tion of union petitions and the distribution of union literature on our
parking lot during the employees' nonworking hours.
WE WILL cease and desist from enforcing our rule prohibiting the solicita-
tion of union membership in our plant during the employees' nonworking
hours.
WE WILL NOT engage in any like or related acts or conduct which interferes
with, restrains, or coerces our employees in the exercise of their rights to
self-organization, to form labor organizations, to join or assist LOCAL 776,
UNITED ELECTRICAL RADIO & MACHINE WORKERS OF AMERICA, INDEPENDENT,
or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through representa-
tives of their own choosing, to engage in concerted activities for the purpose
of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from
any and all such activities except to the extent that such right may be
effected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as
a condition of employment as authorized by section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
We hereby rescind our rule prohibiting the circulation of union petitions and
the distribution of union literature on our parking lot during nonworking hours.
We hereby rescind our rule prohibiting the solicitation of union membership
by our employees, in the plant, during nonworking hours.
THE MONARCH MACHINE TooL Co.,
Brn plover.
By ---------------------------------------
(Representative ) (Title)
Dated----------------------
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof, and must not
be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
SMITH RICE MILL , INC., AND DEWITT BONDED WAREHOUSE COMPANY
and INTERNATIONAL UNION OF UNITED BREWERY , FLOUR , CEREAL,
SOFT DRINK AND DISTILLERY WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO,
PETITIONER . Case No. 32-RC-572. February 11, 1953
Decision and Direction of Election
Upon a petition duly filed, a hearing was held before John E.
Cienki, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the
hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, the Board has delegated it powers in connection with
this case to a three-member panel [Chairman Herzog and Members
Murdock and Peterson].
102 NLRB No. 129.