Triangle Electric Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 27, 2001

335 N.L.R.B. 1037 (N.L.R.B. 2001)

TRIANGLE ELECTRIC CO. 1037
Triangle Electric Company and General Motors Cor-
poration and Lucinda Darrah. Cases 7–CA–
39041 and 7–CA–40075
August 27, 2001
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN HURTGEN AND MEMBERS
LIEBMAN
AND TRUESDALE
On May 11, 1999, Administrative Law Judge Thomas
R. Wilks issued the attached decision. The General
Counsel and the Charging Party filed exceptions and
supporting briefs, and the Respondents filed answering
briefs.
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
only to the extent consistent with this decision, and to
substitute a new Order for that of the judge.
The complaint alleges, inter alia, that Respondent
General Motors Corporation requested Respondent Tri-
angle Electric Company and contractor Superior Electric
to remove Charging Party Lucinda Darrah from a jobsite
because of her exercise of protected concerted activities,
and that Respondent Triangle Electric Company termi-
nated Darrah pursuant to such a request, in violation of
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.2 The judge found no merit to
these allegations and dismissed these portions of the
complaint.3 For the reasons below, we reverse and find
the violations, as alleged.
Facts
Charging Party Linda Darrah is a journeyman electri-
cian and member of International Brotherhood of Electri-
cal Workers, Local 58. From April 1 to May 31, 1996,
Darrah was employed by Respondent Triangle Electric
Company (Triangle). Triangle was a construction con-
tractor at a plant in Hamtramck, Michigan, operated by
Respondent General Motors Corporation (GM), known
as the Poletown site. Darrah was assigned to work at the
Poletown site.

1 The Charging Party has excepted to some of the judge’s credibility
findings. The Board’s established policy is not to overrule an adminis-
trative 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 The complaint also alleges that Superior Electric terminated Darrah
pursuant to Respondent General Motors’ request. However, Superior
Electric is not a party to this proceeding.
3 No exceptions were filed to the judge’s finding that Respondent
General Motors violated Sec. 8(a)(1) by maintaining unlawfully broad
no-solicitation and no-distribution rules.
Between November 1995 and February 1997, Darrah
distributed, sold, and solicited subscriptions at various
locations for a “strike newspaper” known as the Detroit
Sunday Journal (Sunday Journal), a newspaper written
and published by employees on strike against two major
Detroit daily newspapers—the Detroit News and the De-
troit Free Press. In April and May 1996, while she was
employed at the Poletown site, Darrah also distributed,
sold, and solicited subscriptions for the Sunday Journal
at that site in nonwork areas during nonworking time.
Darrah distributed the strike newspaper as a volunteer
and for the purpose of supporting the cause of the strik-
ing newspaper employees.
Darrah testified that, when distributing, she would
typically tell prospective recipients that the Sunday Jour-
nal,
was normally 75 cents. Whatever you want to donate, I
give the money to the strike. I’m not a striker. In other
words, I don’t need the money. I’ve got a regular job
. . . let’s say it was a non-construction worker either at
the Poletown plant, or out on the street, I’d let people
know that their money was going to go help the strike.
On April 22, 1996, Respondent GM’s security person-
nel issued a “Security Incident Report” to Darrah be-
cause she solicited and distributed the Sunday Journal at
the Poletown site. In pertinent part, the Report states:
Ms. Darrah was soliciting the strikers newspapers to
GM employees and other contractors entering plant . . .
I informed her that contractors or any other outside
company is not allowed to sell, distribute or solicit on
GM property.
On May 20, 1996, Respondent GM security personnel
again issued to Darrah a security report because of her
solicitation and distribution of the Sunday Journal. This
report states, in pertinent part:
Details of Incident. At above date and location, Ms.
Darrah was in west entrance corridor soliciting strike
papers. This contractor employee has been repeatedly
instructed not to sell or distribute or solicit names for
home delivery.
The next day, May 21, 1996, Respondent GM ordered
Respondent Triangle to remove Darrah from the Pole-
town site because she distributed the Sunday Journal in
the plant.4 Darrah received her termination paycheck and
departed.
4 As noted, Respondent GM maintained unlawfully broad no-
solicitation and no-distribution rules. Respondent GM considered
335 NLRB No. 82
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 1038
Thereafter, on Feburary 3, 1997, Darrah was again re-
ferred to work at the Poletown site for contractor Supe-
rior Electric. However, she was ejected by Respondent
GM security personnel because of her previous distribu-
tions of the Sunday Journal, again resulting in the loss of
her employment.
Discussion
The judge found that Darrah was not engaged in activ-
ity protected under the Act when she distributed the Sun-
day Journal, and that the Respondents therefore did not
violate the Act with respect to her ejections from the
Poletown site. For the reasons below, we find that she
was engaged in protected activity, and that the Respon-
dents violated Section 8(a)(1) by removing Darrah from
the work site.
The discharge of an employee will violate Section
8(a)(1) of the Act if the employee was engaged in con-
certed activity (i.e. activity engaged in with or on the
authority of other employees and not solely on her own
behalf), the employer knew of the concerted nature of the
employee’s activity, the concerted activity was protected
by the Act, and the discharge was motivated by the em-
ployee’s protected concerted activity. Meyers Industries,
268 NLRB 493, 497 (1984).5
Here, Darrah’s distribution activities with respect to
the Sunday Journal were clearly concerted in character.
Thus, Darrah was not acting as a single individual solely
on her own behalf. Rather, she was engaged in a group
action pertaining to an ongoing strike by the Detroit
newspaper employees.6
Contrary to the judge, we also find that Darrah’s ac-
tivities were protected in character. The purpose of Dar-
rah’s distribution activities was to support the strike of
the Detroit newspaper employees. As noted, Darrah tes-
tified without contradiction that any money she received
from her distributions went to support the strike, that she
informed prospective recipients of the Sunday Journal
that “I give the money to the strike,” and that “I’d let
people know that their money was going to go help the
strike.”

Darrah to be distributing and soliciting in violation of these rules,
thereby causing her ejection from the jobsite.
5 Remanded sub nom. Prill v. NLRB, 755 F.2d 941 (D.C. Cir. 1985),
cert. denied 106 S.Ct. 313, 352 (1985), reaffd. 281 NLRB 882 (1986),
enfd. sub nom. Prill v. NLRB, 835 F.2d 1481 (D.C. Cir. 1987).
6 As the Board held in Meyers Industries, supra, “to find an em-
ployee’s activity to be concerted, we shall require that it be engaged in
with or on the authority of other employees, and not solely by and on
behalf of the employee himself.” (Fn. omitted.) 268 NLRB at 497.
Accordingly, an activity will be deemed concerted in character when it
sufficiently pertains to group activity, as opposed to involving purely
individual activity.
Although Darrah was not herself a Detroit Newspaper
employee or striker, this does not render her conduct
unprotected. As the Supreme Court stated in Eastex, Inc.
v. NLRB, 437 U.S. 556, 564–565 (1978):
The “employees” who may engage in concerted activi-
ties for “mutual aid or protection” are defined by 2(3)
of the Act . . . to “include any employee, and shall not
be limited to the employees of a particular employer,
unless the Act explicitly states otherwise . . .” This
definition was intended to protect employees when
they engage in otherwise proper concerted activities in
support of employees and employers other than their
own.7
In nevertheless finding that Darrah’s distribution ac-
tivities were unprotected, the judge relied principally on
the nature and content of the Sunday Journal itself. The
judge distinguished between whether the Sunday Journal
could be viewed as a “propaganda strike tool” (which
included some nonstrike-related material), or whether it
was “essentially an alternative product produced by strik-
ing employees” (with minimal prostrike news coverage).
In finding that it was the latter, the judge noted that the
contents of the Sunday Journal included predominantly
nonstrike articles and that it was a “facially professional”
news product that was insufficiently related to mutual aid
or protection.
Contrary to the judge, we find that the manner in
which striking employees may exercise protected forms
of “mutual aid or protection” is not limited merely to
overt “propaganda” messages. It may, additionally, en-
compass other forms of activity, as here, when the pur-
7 In arguing that Darrah’s conduct was unprotected, Respondent GM
cites the Court’s subsequent statement in Eastex that “at some point the
relationship [between the concerted activity and employees’ interests as
employees] becomes so attenuated that an activity cannot fairly be
deemed to come within the “mutual aid or protection” clause. 437 U.S.
at 567–568. GM argues that Darrah’s distribution of the Sunday Jour-
nal was too attenuated because “neither she nor GM nor her employer
bore any relationship whatsoever to the striking newsworkers.” We
disagree. Although the underlying labor dispute does not involve GM,
Triangle, or Superior Electric, nonetheless the object and purpose of the
distribution here was to garner support, both financial and moral, for
striking employees in the Detroit community. Such activities are not
“attenuated,” for purposes of mutual aid or protection, when undertaken
in support of the interests of other employees. See Office Depot, Inc.,
330 NLRB 640, 642 (2000) (employee’s use of the term “scab” in
support of striking employees of another employer protected); and
Yellow Cab, Inc., 210 NLRB 568, 569 (1974) (employee’s distribution
of handbills supporting other employers’ employees protected). See
also Eastex, supra at fn. 18, where the Court stated, “The argument that
the employer’s lack of interest or control affords a legitimate basis for
holding that a subject does not come within ‘mutual aid or protection’
is unconvincing,’” quoting from Professor Getman at 115 U. Pa. L.
Rev. 1195, 1221 (1967).
TRIANGLE ELECTRIC CO. 1039
pose of the activity is to advance the strike itself.8 Put
another way, concerted activity engaged in for the pur-
pose of mutual aid or protection, as here, is not rendered
unprotected simply because some feature of those activi-
ties suggests that, in other circumstances, the activities
could have been pursued for purposes that would not be
protected.9
Here, striking newspaper employees produced an al-
ternative newspaper clearly labeled under its masthead as
“A Publication By Striking Detroit Newspaper Work-
ers.” Although the contents certainly could be viewed as
that of a professional and serious news publication,10 the
purpose of the Sunday Journal is related and linked to the
strike itself, whether the newspaper is to be viewed as
“propaganda,” or as “professional” in character, content,
and quality. Thus, the Sunday Journal was produced by
striking employees—who were in fact professional
newspaper writers; one of its purposes was to boost the
morale of the strikers, and thereby to promote strike soli-
darity; it provided an alternative for Detroit newspaper
customers in support of a union boycott of the struck
newspapers; it provided a forum to disseminate the strik-
ers’ viewpoint about strike issues; and, the term of its
continued existence, according to its articles of incorpo-
ration, was intended only to track the pendency of the
strike itself.11 In view of these strike related purposes,
we find that the Sunday Journal was a means to promote
the ultimate success of the strike notwithstanding the
professional overall quality of its presentation.12 As dis-

8 “Purpose” is, of course, critical to our inquiry. Sec. 7 expressly re-
fers to concerted activities undertaken for the “purpose” of collective
bargaining or other mutual aid or protection.
9 Wilkes-Barre Publishing Co., 266 NLRB 438 (1983), cited by the
judge, is clearly distinguishable. In Wilkes Barre a strike replacement,
who crossed a union picket line every day for the 2-1/2 year duration of
her employment with a daily newspaper, placed an advertisement in a
newspaper established by striking newspaper employees. The strike
replacement placed the advertisement solely for the purpose of promot-
ing her individual private business interests, and she had no purpose of
aiding the striking employees. In finding that the strike replacement’s
advertisement was not protected concerted activity, the Board noted
that the employee had no purpose of aiding the strikers, but instead
acted for personal interests. In the present case, Darrah acted for pre-
cisely the opposite purpose as that presented in Wilkes Barre—to sup-
port the strikers.
10 As the judge found, while the Sunday Journal included strike-
related coverage and advertisements predominantly for labor organiza-
tions and various law firms, the vast preponderance of its contents
relate to news and sports coverage unrelated to the Detroit newspaper
strike, as well as including some advertisements placed by local busi-
nesses and classified ads by individuals.
11 The Respondent presented no witnesses at the hearing. The pur-
pose of the Sunday Journal was described, in part, by striking Team-
sters Local 372 Secretary-Treasurer Al Derey.
12 Cf. Detroit Newspapers, 330 NLRB 505 (2000), enf. denied on
other grounds by unopposed summary disposition No. 00-1327 (D.C.
Cir. 2000) (Unions’ publication of Detroit Sunday Journal did not con-
cussed above, Darrah’s purpose in distributing the Sun-
day Journal was also clearly to support the strike.
In dismissing the complaint, the judge also relied on
his finding the Respondents only had notice that Darrah
was distributing “an apparent general circulation news-
paper” produced by striking employees, and were not
aware of any strike-related content therein or the subjec-
tive motivations of its publishers or Darrah herself.
However, the record does not show that the Respondents
had any basis to conclude that the Sunday Journal was
purportedly a “general circulation” newspaper. Indeed,
according to Respondent GM’s brief, any assertion that
Respondent GM had knowledge of the Sunday Journal’s
content is “unfounded.”
Further, as discussed above, the record does clearly
show that the Respondent was aware of the concerted
nature of Darrah’s activity. As indicated above, the GM
security reports themselves referred to Darrah’s conduct
as “distribut[ing]” and “soliciting” “strikers newspapers”
or “strike papers.” Soliciting and distributing to other
employees are quintessential group activities under the
Act; as, of course, are strikes. Contrary to our dissenting
colleague, we think this description alone would there-
fore reasonably tend to put the Respondents on notice
that there was, or could be, a correlation between Dar-
rah’s activities and “mutual aid or protection” activities
associated with the “strike,” notwithstanding the Re-
spondent’s lack of knowledge concerning the precise
contents of the strike newspaper or Darrah’s motivation
in distributing it. Cf. Kysor Industrial Corp., 309 NLRB
237 (1992) (employer violated Sec. 8(a)(1) by disciplin-
ing employees who assembled at supervisor’s desk to ask
about their work assignments, notwithstanding em-
ployer’s lack of knowledge about why the employees
were confused or were seeking specific directions about
their assignments).
We recognize, as our colleague points out, that a
newspaper typically is, in part, a commercial product that
can be sold for personal remuneration by a vendor who
may, or may not have any personal interest in “support-
ing” the newspaper itself. In the present case, however,
Darrah engaged in solicitation/distribution activities di-
rected at other employees, in nonwork areas during non-
work time and at her site of employment, of a specialized
“strike” periodical. Although the strike newspaper had a
listed price on its cover and Darrah raised money for the
strikers, this does not render Darrah akin to a “newsboy
or newsgirl on the street,” as the dissent suggests.
Rather, Darrah’s activities are essentially no different

stitute a clear and present danger of a conflict of interest interfering
with collective bargaining process.)
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 1040
than the protected activities of any employee who, in a
group effort, concertedly distributes or solicits leaflets,
circulars, or other group material, and/or raises money
for the group, at his or her place of employment during
nonwork time and in nonwork areas. In these circum-
stances, we cannot agree with our colleague that the Re-
spondents were unaware of the group nature of Darrah’s
activities.
In sum, Darrah was engaged in protected concerted ac-
tivity (the distribution and solicitation of the Sunday
Journal in support of the strike), the Respondents were
aware of the concerted nature of the activity, and there is
no dispute that her discharge was, in fact, attributable to
that activity. Accordingly, under the standards set forth
in Meyers Industries, supra, we find that the Respondents
violated Section 8(a)(1) by causing the termination, and
terminating Darrah because of her exercise of protected
concerted activities.
AMENDED REMEDY
Having found that the Respondents have engaged in
certain unfair labor practices, we shall order them to
cease and desist and to take certain affirmative action
designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
Having found that Respondent GM has violated the
Act by maintaining a facially invalid no-solicitation/no-
distribution rule, we shall order it to rescind or modify
that rule so that non-GM employees working at its Ham-
tramck, Michigan plant, are not prohibited from solicita-
tion or distribution for purposes protected by Section 7 of
the Act during nonworking time in nonworking areas of
the Respondent’s GM’s Hamtramck, Michigan plant.
Having found that Respondent GM requested contrac-
tor Superior Electric to remove Lucinda Darrah from its
Hamtramck jobsite because she engaged in lawful distri-
bution and solicitation activities and that this action re-
sulted in Darrah’s discharge, we shall order Respondent
GM to inform Superior Electric that it has no objection to
Darrah’s employment at the Hamtramck jobsite and to
request that Superior Electric reinstate her to her former
position. We shall also order that Respondent GM make
whole Darrah for any loss of earnings and other benefits
that she may have suffered by reason of her loss of em-
ployment on February 3, 1997, with Superior Electric, as
prescribed in F. W. Woolworth Co., 90 NLRB 289
(1950), plus interest as computed in New Horizons for
the Retarded, 283 NLRB 1173 (1987).13

13 The General Counsel seeks in the complaint a monetary remedy
imposed on Respondent GM, on behalf of Charging Party Darrah, only
with respect to her loss of employment with Superior Electric on Feb-
ruary 3, 1997, and not with regard to her earlier loss of employment
with Respondent Triangle in May 1996.
Having found that Respondent Triangle Electric Com-
pany unlawfully discharged Darrah because of her exer-
cise of protected concerted activities, we shall order it to
reinstate her to her former position, or if that job no
longer exists, to a substantially equivalent position, and
make her whole for any loss of earnings and other bene-
fits she may have suffered as the result of her discharge,
as prescribed in F. W. Woolworth Co., supra, plus inter-
est as computed in New Horizons for the Retarded, su-
pra.14
ORDER
A. The National Labor Relations Board orders that the
Respondent, General Motors Corporation, Hamtramck,
Michigan, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns,
shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Requesting contractors to remove an employee
from its Hamtramck, Michigan plant, because that em-
ployee has engaged in lawful distribution and solicitation
activities protected under the National Labor Relations
Act.
(b) Maintaining a no-solicitation/no-distribution rule at
its Hamtramck, Michigan plant, that forbids solicitations
and distributions of material for purposes protected by
Section 7 of the Act anywhere in that plant during non-
working time by employees working there but who are
not directly employed by it.
(c) In any like or related manner interfering with, re-
straining, or coercing employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to
effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Rescind or modify the no-solicitation/no-
distribution rule at its Hamtramck, Michigan plant,
which forbids solicitations and distribution of materials
for purposes protected by Section 7 of the Act during
nonworking times by employees working there but who
are not directly employed by it.
(b) Within 14 days from the date of this Order, inform
Superior Electric, with copies to Lucinda Darrah, that
General Motors Corporation has no objection to Superior
Electric employing Darrah at its jobsite and request that
they reinstate her to her former position.
(c) Make Lucinda Darrah whole for any loss of earn-
ings and other benefits suffered as a result of her loss of
employment with Superior Electric in the manner set
forth in the remedy section of this decision.
(d) Within 14 days from the date of this Order, remove
from its files any reference to Darrah’s distributions and
14 The Respondents may litigate appropriate remedial issues at the
compliance stage of this proceeding.
TRIANGLE ELECTRIC CO. 1041
her removal from the Hamtramck jobsite and, within 3
days thereafter, notify Darrah in writing that this has
been done and the distributions and removal from the
jobsite will not be used against her in any way.
(e) Preserve and, within 14 days of a request, or such
additional time as the Regional Director may allow for
good cause shown, provide at a reasonable place desig-
nated by the Board or its agents, all payroll records, so-
cial security payment records, timecards, personnel re-
cords and reports, and all other records, including an
electronic copy of such records if stored in electronic
form, necessary to analyze the amount of backpay due
under the terms of this Order.
(f) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at
its facility in Hamtramck, Michigan, copies of the at-
tached notice marked “Appendix.15 Copies of the notice,
on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region
7, after being signed by the Respondent’s authorized
representative, shall be posted by the Respondent imme-
diately on receipt and maintained for 60 consecutive days
in conspicuous places, including all places where notices
to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps
shall be taken by the Respondent to ensure that the no-
tices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other
material. In the event that, during the pendency of these
proceedings, the Respondent has gone out of business or
closed the facility involved in these proceedings, the Re-
spondent shall duplicate and mail, at its own expense, a
copy of the notice to all current employees and former
employees employed by the Respondent at any time
since February 3, 1997.
(g) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file
with the Regional Director a sworn certification of a re-
sponsible official on a form provided by the Region at-
testing to the steps that the Respondent has taken to
comply.
B. The National Labor Relations Board orders that the
Respondent, Triangle Electric Company, Madison
Heights, Michigan, its officers, agents, successors, and
assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Discharging employees because they have engaged
in lawful distribution and solicitation activities protected
under the National Labor Relations Act.
(b) In any like or related manner interfering with, re-
straining, or coercing employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act.

15 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 Na-
tional Labor Relations Board” shall read “Posted Pursuant to a Judg-
ment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the
National Labor Relations Board.”
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to
effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Within 14 days from the date of this Order, offer
Lucinda Darrah full reinstatement to her former job, or, if
that job no longer exist, to a substantially equivalent po-
sition, without prejudice to her seniority or any other
rights or privileges previously enjoyed.
(b) Make Lucinda Darrah whole for any loss of earn-
ings and other benefits suffered as a result of her unlaw-
ful discharge in the manner set forth in the remedy sec-
tion of this decision.
(c) Within 14 days from the date of this Order, remove
from its files any reference to the unlawful discharge of
Linda Darrah and, within 3 days thereafter, notify her in
writing that this has been done and that the discharge will
not be used against her in any way.
(d) Preserve and, within 14 days of a request, or such
additional time as the Regional Director may allow for
good cause shown, provide at a reasonable place desig-
nated by the Board or its agents, all payroll records, so-
cial security payment records, timecards, personnel re-
cords and reports, and all other records, including an
electronic copy of such records if stored in electronic
form, necessary to analyze the amount of backpay due
under the terms of this Order.
(e) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at
its facility in Madison Heights, Michigan, copies of the
attached notice marked “Appendix.”16 Copies of the
notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for
Region 7, after being signed by Respondents authorized
representative, shall be posted by the Respondent imme-
diately on receipt and maintained for 60 consecutive days
in conspicuous places including all places where notices
to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps
shall be taken by the Respondent to ensure that the no-
tices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other
material. In the event that, during the pendency of these
proceedings, the Respondent has gone out of business or
closed the facility involved in these proceedings, the Re-
spondent shall duplicate and mail, at its own expense, a
copy of the notice to all current employees and former
employees employed by the Respondent at any time
since May 21, 1996.
(f) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file
with the Regional Director a sworn certification of a re-
sponsible official on a form provided by the Region at-
testing to the steps that the Respondent has taken to
comply.

16 See fn. 15, supra.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 1042
CHAIRMAN HURTGEN, dissenting in part.
The issue here is whether Respondent General Motors
(GM) violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by causing the
removal of Lucinda Darrah, the Charging Party, from the
GM jobsite where she was performing work for her em-
ployer, Triangle Electric (Triangle), and whether Trian-
gle violated Section 8(a)(1) by subsequently discharging
Darrah. The judge found no violation as to Darrah and
dismissed the related complaint allegations. My col-
leagues reverse. For the following reasons, I agree with
the judge that these allegations should be dismissed.
The facts, in brief, are as follows. Darrah is a jour-
neyman electrician who was employed by Triangle from
April 1 to May 21, 1996,1 to perform work for Triangle
at GM’s Hamtramck, Michigan, plant, known as the
Poletown plant. During the period that she worked at the
Poletown site, Darrah distributed, sold, and solicited sub-
scriptions for the Detroit Sunday Journal (Sunday Jour-
nal), a newspaper written and published by employees on
strike against the Detroit News and the Detroit Free
Press.
On April 22, a Pinkerton security guard, an admitted
agent of GM, filed a “Security Incident Report” with his
superior officer which recorded an incident involving
Darrah on the same date. The report stated:

At above date & location this writer received call
stating, Ms. Darrah was soliciting the strikers news-
papers to GM employees & other contractors enter-
ing plant. When this writer informed her she could
not distribute papers she asked why? I informed her
that contractors or any other outside company is not
allowed to sell, distribute or solicit on G.M. prop-
erty. She continued to asked [sic] why? but returned
papers to her bag and proceeded toward her job site.

Despite having been warned not to sell the Sunday
Journal, Darrah again attempted to sell and distribute
copies of the newspaper on May 20. A Pinkerton guard
prepared a security report of the same date which re-
corded a second confrontation with Darrah:
Details of incident: At above date and location, Ms.
Darrah was in west entr[ance] corridor soliciting strike
papers. This contractor emp[loyee] has been repeat-
edly instructed not to sell or distribute or solicit names
for home delivery. . . . When this writer spoke with Ms.
Darrah, she refuse[d] to give her name and just
pack[ed] up [the] papers and return[ed] them to her car.
Later the same day, Darrah’s supervisor informed her
that GM personnel were disturbed by her Sunday Journal
sales efforts in the plant. The next day, May 21, Darrah

1 All dates hereafter refer to 1996.
was informed that GM had ordered that Respondent Tri-
angle remove her from the plant. Darrah received her
termination paycheck at 2:30 p.m. and departed.
Finding that Respondent GM did not know of the con-
certed nature of Darrah’s sales activities when it ordered
Darrah’s removal from the Poletown plant, the judge
found that Respondent GM did not violate Section
8(a)(1) by requiring Triangle to remove Darrah from the
plant. In this regard, the judge concluded “that Respon-
dent GM and its Pinkerton agents only had notice that
Darrah was distributing in conjunction with and promo-
tion of a solicitation of sales of issues of and subscrip-
tions for home delivery of an apparent general circulation
newspaper produced by striking newspaper workers.”2
My colleagues reverse the judge to find, in effect, that
the Respondents knew that Darrah was engaged in con-
certed activity when she sold and distributed the Sunday
Journal. My colleagues assert that since the Respondents
were aware that Darrah was selling a “strike newspaper,”
they should have known “that there was, or could be,” a
connection between Darrah’s activity and the striking
employees’ protected activities of publishing and distrib-
uting the Sunday Journal. I disagree.
As explained in KNTV, Inc., 319 NLRB 447, 459
(1995), “Section 8(a)(1) is violated if the Respondent
knows of its employees’ concerted activity, if the activity
is protected by the Act, and if the adverse employment
action is motivated by the employees’ protected concerted
activities.”3 Further, “[t]he burden of establishing every
element of a violation under the Act is on the General
Counsel.” Iron Workers Local 386 (Warshawsky & Co.),
325 NLRB 748, 756 (1998), enf. denied 182 F.3d 948
(D.C. Cir. 1999), cert. denied sub nom. Ironworkers Local
386 v. Warshawsky & Co., 529 U.S. 1003 (2000). The
issue here is whether the use of the adjective “strike” to
2 Finding that the Sunday Journal was a commercial enterprise and
an alternate product to the Detroit News and the Detroit Free Press, the
judge dismissed this allegation on the additional ground that Darrah’s
sale and distribution of the Sunday Journal were not protected under the
Act. For the purposes of this case, I will assume arguendo that Dar-
rah’s activities were protected.
3 As the Board explained in Meyers Industries, 268 NLRB 493, 497
fn. 23 (1984), revd. sub nom. Prill v. NLRB, 755 F.2d 941 (D.C. Cir.
1985), cert. denied 474 U.S. 971 (1985), decision on remand sub nom.
Meyers Industries, 281 NLRB 882 (1986), affd. sub nom. Prill v.
NLRB, 835 F. 2d 1481 (D.C. Cir. 1987), cert. denied 487 U.S. 1205
(1988):
Under this standard, an employee “may be discharged by the em-
ployer for a good reason, a poor reason, or no reason at all, so long as
the terms of the statute are not violated.” NLRB v. Condenser Corp. of
America, 128 F.2d 67, 75 (3d Cir. 1942). Thus, absent special cir-
cumstances like NLRB v. Burnup & Sims, 379 U.S. 21 (1964), there is
no violation if an employer, even mistakenly, imposes discipline in the
good-faith belief that an employee engaged in misconduct.
TRIANGLE ELECTRIC CO. 1043
describe what is essentially a commercial newspaper suf-
ficed to put Respondent GM on notice that Darrah’s sale
and distribution of the Sunday Journal was concerted ac-
tivity. I find, in agreement with the judge, that it did not.
The Respondents knew only that Darrah was selling
copies of a commercial newspaper, the strike newspaper,
at the Poletown plant. As my colleagues admit, they had
no knowledge of Darrah’s motive in selling the newspa-
per. My colleagues assert that since the Respondents
knew that Darrah was selling and distributing the “strik-
ers newspapers” or “strike papers,” it was unnecessary to
show “that the Respondents were also aware of Darrah’s
subjective motivations” in order to find that the Respon-
dents knew of the concerted nature of Darrah’s activities.
In support of their view, my colleagues rely on Kysor
Industrial Corp., 309 NLRB 237 (1992). However, that
case is readily distinguishable from the present case. In
Kysor, employees assembled together at a supervisor’s
desk to ask about their work assignments. The action of
assembling together by itself established that the em-
ployees’ activity was concerted, and the employer knew
of that action. It was therefore not necessary for the re-
spondent to know why the employees had come together
to ask about their work assignments.
In the present case, by contrast, Darrah acted alone.
Her conduct consisted of selling and distributing a com-
mercial newspaper. She sold and distributed the news-
paper to employees of employers who were not directly
involved in the Detroit newspaper strike. In these cir-
cumstances, I find, in agreement with the judge, that the
General Counsel has not met his burden of showing that
the Respondents knew, or should have known, that Dar-
rah was engaged in concerted activity. That burden is
not met merely by showing that the Respondents knew
that Darrah was selling and distributing the “strikers
newspapers” or “strike papers.” The use of the word
“strike,” standing alone, was not sufficient to signal to
Respondents, in the circumstances present here, that Dar-
rah’s activity was concerted in nature. Compare Office
Depot, 330 NLRB 640, 642 (2000) (where employee of
one employer said to employee of another employer “Oh,
you work for the scab newspaper,” Board found that the
use of the term “scab” was an expression of support for
striking employees and “amounted to making common
cause with the protected concerted activity of the em-
ployees of another employer.”). Finally, since Respon-
dent GM was unaware of the concerted nature of Dar-
rah’s conduct, it was free to order her removal from the
Poletown plant.4

4 As explained above, absent special circumstances like those in
NLRB v. Burnup & Sims, supra, there is no violation if an employer,
even mistakenly, imposes discipline in the good-faith belief that an
I recognize that Respondent knew that Darrah was
selling a strike newspaper. However, the fact that an
employer knows that someone is selling a strike newspa-
per does not establish that the employer knows that the
seller is making common cause with the strikers. A
newsboy or newsgirl on the street can sell a strike news-
paper without making common cause with the strikers.
The same is true even if the seller is an employee of a
nonstruck employer.
Concededly, it may well be the case that Darrah sold
the paper because she was in sympathy with the strikers.
Indeed, as noted above, I shall assume arguendo that this
is so and that her actions were protected. However, the
General Counsel has not established that Respondents
knew that she was acting in sympathy with the strikers.
And, as discussed above, the fact that they knew that she
was selling a strike newspaper does not show that they
knew that she was acting in sympathy with the strike.
Indeed, the reason for taking action against Darrah was
that she was selling papers and soliciting subscriptions
for home delivery, not that she was acting in sympathy
with strikers.
My colleagues say that soliciting and distributing to
other employees are quintessential group activities under
the Act. Similarly, my colleagues say that soliciting to
raise money for a group is protected activity. The state-
ments are overly broad, and lead to my colleagues’ error
in this case. Soliciting other employees to buy Girl
Scout cookies, in order to raise money for that group, is
not protected by Section 7. Neither is selling a newspa-
per. And, the fact that the selling occurs at the place of
employment does not render the sale protected.
In the instant case, Darrah’s motive in selling the
newspaper may have been to aid the employees at the
Detroit Newspapers. But, there is no showing that the
Respondents knew that. Nor could the Respondents infer
it merely from the fact that the security incident reports
referred to it as a strike newspaper. That is what it was.
But that does not show that the Respondents knew that
Darrah’s motive was to aid the strikers.

employee engaged in unprotected activity. The only issue remaining,
then, is whether the Burnup & Sims exception applies here. As stated
in Kysor Industrial Corp., supra (emphasis added):
I think not. Whatever the final sentence of footnote 23 [see
above, n. 20] may mean, it seems clear that before the Burnup &
Sims gloss on the statute comes into play, the employer must be
aware that the context in which the alleged misconduct occurred
was activity which was both concerted and protected, qualifica-
tions which were present in Burnup & Sims.
In the present case, the Respondents were not aware that Darrah’s
activities were concerted. Therefore, the Burnup & Sims “gloss” does
not apply.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 1044
The issue here is what did the Respondents know
about Darrah’s activities. The Respondents knew that
the Sunday Journal, as a newspaper, was a commercial
enterprise. The Respondents also knew that Darrah, as a
vendor of the newspaper, was, participating in that com-
mercial enterprise. The Respondents did not know, how-
ever, what Darrah did with the money she earned selling
the newspaper. Nor, as explained above, could the Re-
spondents have known from the words “strikers newspa-
pers” or “strike papers” that Darrah’s sale of the newspa-
per was other than an aspect of the commercial enter-
prise. Thus, as far as the Respondents knew, Darrah’s
sale and distribution of the Sunday Journal was indeed
“akin” to that of a newsboy or newsgirl on the street,
because there would be no reason for the Respondents to
know that the sale of the newspaper was concerted activ-
ity rather than commercial activity.
For all these reasons, I would adopt the judge’s finding
that Respondent GM did not violate Section 8(a)(1) by
causing Darrah’s removal from the GM Poletown plant
and that Respondent Triangle Electric did not violate
Section 8(a)(1) by subsequently discharging Darrah.
APPENDIX A
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.
Section 7 of the Act gives employees these rights.

To organize
To form, join, or assist any union
To bargain collectively through representatives of their
own choice
To act together for other mutual aid or protection
To choose not to engage in any of these protected
concerted activities.

WE WILL NOT request our contractors to remove
employees from our Hamtramck, Michigan jobsite, be-
cause those employees have engaged in lawful distribu-
tion and solicitation activities protected under the Na-
tional Labor Relations Act, which results in the discharge
of such employees.
WE WILL NOT maintain a no-solicitation/no distribu-
tion rule at our Hamtramck, Michigan plant that forbids
solicitations and distributions of material for purposes
protected by Section 7 of the Act anywhere in that plant
during nonworking time by employees working there but
who are not directly employed by us.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere
with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL rescind or modify the no-solicitation/no-
distribution rule at our Hamtramck, Michigan plant,
which forbids solicitations and distribution of materials
for purposes protected by Section 7 of the Act during
nonworking times by employees working there but who
are not directly employed by us.
WE WILL, within 14 days from the date of the
Board’s Order, inform Superior Electric, with copies to
Lucinda Darrah, that we have no objection to Superior
Electric employing her on our jobsites and WE WILL
request that Superior Electric reinstate her to her former
position.
WE WILL make Lucinda Darrah whole for any loss of
earnings and other benefits suffered as a result of her loss
of employment with Superior Electirc, with interest.
WE WILL, within 14 days of the date of the Board’s
Order, remove from our files and reference to Lucinda
Darrah’s distributions and her removal from the Ham-
tramck jobsite, and WE WILL within 3 days thereafter,
notify Darrah in writing that this has been done and that
the distributing and removals from the jobsite will not be
used against her in any way.
APPENDIX B
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.

Section 7 of the Act gives employees these rights.
To organize
To form, join, or assist any union
To bargain collectively through representatives of their
own choice
To act together for other mutual aid or protection
To choose not to engage in any of these protected con-
certed activities.

WE WILL NOT discharge employees because they
have engaged in lawful distribution and solicitation ac-
tivities protected under the National Labor Relations Act.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere
with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL, within 14 days of the Board’s Order, offer
Lucinda Darrah full reinstatement to her former job, or if
that job no longer exists, to a substantially equivalent
TRIANGLE ELECTRIC CO. 1045
position, without prejudice to her seniority or any other
rights or privileges previously enjoyed.
WE WILL make whole Lucinda Darrah for any loss of
earnings and other benefits suffered as a result of her
unlawful discharge, with interest.
WE WILL, within 14 days from the date of the
Board’s Order, remove from our files any reference to
the unlawful discharge of Lucinda Darrah and, within 3
days thereafter, WE WILL notify her in writing that this
has been done and that the discharge will not be used
against her in any way.

TRIANGLE ELECTRIC COMPANY

Linda Rabin Hammell, Esq., for the Acting General Counsel.
Stewart J. Katz, Esq. (Keller, Thoma, Schwarze, Dubay, &
Katz), of Detroit, Michigan, for Respondent, Triangle Elec-
tric Company.
Mark Pieroni, Esq., of Detroit, Michigan, for Respondent, Gen-
eral Motors Corporation.
Ellis Boal, Esq., of Detroit, Michigan, for the Charging Party.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
THOMAS R. WILKS, Administrative Law Judge. This case
was tried before me at Detroit, Michigan, on August 12, 1998,
pursuant to unfair labor practice charges filed by Lucinda Dar-
rah, an individual, against Triangle Electric Company, herein
called Respondent Triangle, on October 1, 1996, and against
General Motors Corporation, here called Respondent GM, on
July 27, 1997, and pursuant to a consolidated complaint and
notice of hearing, here called the complaint, issued by the
Board’s Regional Director on February 27, 1998. The Respon-
dents filed timely answers which denied the commission of
unfair labor practices, and motions to dismiss the complaint,
which were denied by Order of the Board, issued on August 3,
1998.
The issue raised by the pleadings is whether Respondent Tri-
angle, an electrical contractor, while performing work at a Re-
spondent GM plant, acquiesced in Respondent GM’s request to
remove Triangle employee Darrah from work she had been
performing at that plant and thereby caused her loss of em-
ployment because she had attempted to distribute and solicit
sales in that plant of the Detroit Sunday Journal, a publication
by six striking Detroit newspaper unions, in violation of an
overly broad no-solicitation/no distribution rule addressed to
non-GM employees working in the plant. The Acting General
Counsel alleged that the Charging Party, by aligning herself
with third party striking employees, engaged in concerted pro-
tected activity by distributing and selling a community-wide
“mass handbill;” i.e., a newspaper published by striking unions
which contained news accounts sympathetic to the strikers’
position in a dispute with their employers and which provided
economic support for the strikers.
The Respondents argue that the striking unions’ newspaper
was a commercial venture which provided an alternate newspa-
per to the general public which, by virtue of its preponderance
of nonnewspaper strike general news and editorial content and
its limited reference to a labor dispute which involved neither
the Respondent nor its employees, exceeded the protection of
the Act accorded under its “mutual aid or protection” clause.
The Respondents conclude that Darrah was not engaged in
activities protected by the Act when she was ordered by Re-
spondent GM to be removed from its plant.
The parties were given full opportunity at the trial to adduce
relevant testimonial and documentary evidence and to argue
orally. They were also afforded opportunity to submit post-trial
briefs, which were received on October 19, 1998.
Based on the entire record, oral arguments, the briefs, and
my observation and evaluations of the witnesses’ demeanor, I
make the following findings.
I. JURISDICTION
At all material times, Respondent GM, a corporation with of-
fices and places of business in Detroit and Hamtramck, Michi-
gan, has been engaged in the manufacture and nonretail sale of
automobiles. During the calendar year 1997, in the course and
conduct of its business operations, Respondent GM sold and
shipped from its Hamtramck, Michigan facility, goods and
materials valued in excess of $50,000 directly to points outside
the State of Michigan.
At all material times, Respondent Triangle, a corporation
with an office and facility at 29787 Stephenson Highway,
Madison Heights, Michigan, herein called the Madison Heights
facility, has been engaged in the electrical construction and
maintenance business at various jobsites in the State of Michi-
gan. During the calendar year 1996, in conducting its business
operations, Respondent Triangle had gross revenues in excess
of $500,000 and purchased goods valued in excess of $50,000
from points located outside the State of Michigan and had said
goods shipped directly to its Madison Heights facility.
It is admitted, and I find, that Respondents Triangle and GM
are now, and have been at all times material here, employers
engaged in commerce within the meaning of Sections 2(2), (6),
and (7) of the Act.
II. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Facts
1. Events leading to plant ejection
Lucinda Darrah, here called the Charging Party, is a jour-
neyman electrician. She is a member of Local 58, International
Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW).
Darrah began working for Respondent Triangle at Respon-
dent GM’s Poletown construction site in Hamtramck, Michi-
gan, via referral under the hiring hall procedure contained in the
collective-bargaining agreement between Respondent Triangle
and Local 58.1 She was employed at the Poletown site by Re-
spondent Triangle from April 1 through May 21, 1996, in the
installation of replacement lighting fixtures in a renovated pro-
duction area, along with various other skilled trades’ construc-
tion workers employed by subcontractors.

1 Poletown is a colloquial reference to a section of Hamtramck,
which, in turn, is a municipal enclave completely surrounded by the
City of Detroit.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 1046
On July 13, 1995, six unions commenced a strike against the
two major Detroit daily newspapers; i.e., the Detroit News and
the Detroit Free Press and their joint creation under the Federal
Newspaper Preservation Act, the Detroit News Agency
(DNA).2 The strike was ongoing during Darrah’s Poletown
employment. Neither of the Respondents was involved in the
newspaper labor dispute. Although never employed by the
newspapers, Darrah had been an ardent and active supporter of
the striking newspaper employees prior to and during her Pole-
town employment. She attended support meetings, fundraisers,
strike rallies, and she distributed strike support fliers at various
public places and institutions. She also distributed and sold
individual copies of and subscriptions to the Detroit Sunday
Journal that she characterized as a strike newspaper published
by the six striking newspaper unions. She distributed some
copies free of charge and solicited sales and subscriptions from
a variety of unidentified employees at unidentified, nonnews-
paper employers commencing with the first issue in November
1995. She obtained bundles of the papers each Saturday morn-
ing. Each bundle contained 100 papers. She paid $55 for each
bundle. The initial printed price of the paper was 60 cents but
it was raised later to 75 cents. Darrah testified that some pur-
chasers freely paid more than the requested price, particularly
construction workers who usually paid a dollar for each copy.
Darrah testified that she returned all of her profits to the pub-
lisher.
Darrah testified that during the period from November 1995
to February 1997, she solicited sales by telling the prospective
purchasers, i.e., employees or “people on the street,” that they
could give what they wanted for the paper but that she herself
was not a striker and did not need the money but would donate
it to support the newspaper strike. She testified that she also
asked the prospective purchasers to boycott businesses which
continued to advertise in the struck newspapers and that she, in
general, “educated people” regarding the newspaper strike is-
sues. There is no evidence that any of these foregoing activities
away from Poletown were known to the Respondents, nor were
they aware of what she told prospective purchasers away from
or at Poletown.
Darrah testified that on a Monday in mid-April 1996, she
first attempted to sell copies of the Journal to GM employees
inside the Poletown plant in the main aisle of the production
area used by hi-lo vehicles driven by GM employees. She did
this at 6:15 a.m. prior to her 7 a.m. shift. Ten persons, one of
whom was a uniformed guard employed by the Pinkerton Secu-
rity Agency, told her not to “sell this paper here.” She there-
fore desisted and retreated to her assigned work area. At 9:30
a.m., during her break at the nonwork picnic tables area in the
plant, she solicited other construction trade employees, i.e.,
subcontractor employees, to purchase copies and home delivery
subscriptions. She also distributed strike rally notice fliers to
them. There is no evidence that any agent of the Respondent
was aware of this activity. The Pinkerton guards are admitted
agents of Respondent GM.
Thereafter, Darrah continued her distribution and
sales/subscription solicitation inside the Poletown plant in a

2 See Detroit Newspapers, 326 NLRB 700 (1998).
west entrance, L-shaped corridor at a location 15 feet from a
double door entry to the inner plant and the GM employees’
timeclock. This solicitation was directed to GM production
workers from 6:30 a.m. to 7 a.m. prior to their clocking in or
after the prior shift clocked out. She also solicited sales from
non-GM construction workers on their way to the construction
renovation site. The solicitation area was free of any produc-
tion or construction work. Darrah testified that she engaged in
this solicitation activity on subsequent Mondays for 5 weeks, in
the hallway and at the picnic tables, and was not told to desist.
However, she failed to testify whether a Pinkerton guard or any
other agent of GM observed her. She estimated that during this
period she distributed about 5 to 10 copies at the picnic tables
and 15 to 30 copies in the hallway each Monday. She esti-
mated that she distributed about 60 to 70 percent of the Journal
issues to construction workers, i.e., those who wore “hardhats,”
and the remainder to those she assumed were GM personnel
because they wore no hardhats.
A Pinkerton guard filed a “Security Incident Report,” dated
April 22, 1996, with his superior officer referencing an incident
of that date involving Darrah in the “A22 Aisleway.” The re-
port stated:

At above date & location this writer received call stat-
ing, Ms. Darrah was soliciting the strikers newspapers to
GM employees & other contractors entering plant. When
this writer informed her she could not distribute papers she
asked why? I informed her that contractors or any other
outside company is not allowed to sell, distribute or solicit
on G.M. property. She continued to asked [sic] why? but
returned papers to her bag and proceeded toward her job
site.3

It is admitted that since on or about March 30, 1996, Re-
spondent GM has maintained at its Poletown facility a no-
distribution/no solicitation rule that prohibits “visitors,” includ-
ing employees working at the facility but not directly employed
by Respondent GM, from selling, distributing, or soliciting on
Respondent GM’s property without GM authority. It is further
admitted that the Pinkerton Security Agency has since the same
date maintained enforcement of that rule.
It was further stipulated that Respondent GM maintained a
much narrower rule with respect to its own employees that
restricted distributions to nonworking time and distribution to
nonworking areas.
Darrah testified that on Monday morning, May 20, 1996, she
again commenced her distribution, sale, and subscription solici-
tation of the Journal at the usual time and in the same manner to
the same type of persons in the same corridor when a Pinkerton
guard confronted her. The guard loudly stated, “I told you, you
can’t distribute this paper.” Darrah did not reply and refused to
disclose her name when asked. The guard then stated, “well
you can’t sell this paper anywhere on this property.” Darrah
picked up her bundle of 100 Journals and carried them to the
outside cross gate, vehicular entrance 100 yards from the plant
3 No Pinkerton security guard testified. Neither of the Respondents
adduced any testimonial evidence except that derived from cross-
examination.
TRIANGLE ELECTRIC CO. 1047
door, but still on GM property, and distributed for about 20
minutes when another Pinkerton guard confronted her stating,
“you can’t sell this paper here; [you] can’t sell it anywhere on
our property.” Darrah asked where she could sell it and was
directed to the public sidewalk 200–300 yards away. Since it
was 6:50 a.m., she abandoned the effort and reported for work.
Later in the same day, her supervisor reported to her that GM
labor relations persons were disturbed by her Journal sales ef-
forts in the plant. On Tuesday, the next day, she was informed
that GM had ordered Respondent Triangle to remove her from
the plant, and she received her termination paycheck at 2:30
p.m. and departed. It is stipulated that but for Respondent
GM’s demand, Triangle would not have removed Darrah from
employment at the Poletown plant on May 21, 1996.
A Pinkerton security guard (an admitted GM agent) prepared
a security report dated May 20, in reference to Darrah’s activity
in the west entrance corridor on that date: It states:

Details of Incident: At above date and location, Ms.
Darrah was in west entr corridor soliciting strike papers.
This contractor emp. Has been repeatedly instructed not to
sell, or distribute or solicit names for home delivery. And
yet she still stands at west entr desk, distributes papers on
A-22 aisle, at job site & today (5-20-96) inside west entr
desk (near men’s room). When this writer, spoke with Ms.
Darrah, she refuse to give her name and just pack up pa-
pers and return them to her car.

Subsequently on February 3, 1997, Darrah was referred to
work for another electrical contractor at the Poletown plant but
was ejected by Pinkerton guards even though she made no at-
tempts to distribute or solicit sales for the Journal on that occa-
sion.
2. Evidence of Poletown plant distribution practice
Respondent GM’s Poletown production and maintenance
employees are represented by the UAW. That Union maintains
in-plant employee representatives called plant committee per-
sons. Certain in-plant space is reserved for their exclusive
UAW representation duties. It is called the committee room.
Darrah testified that she observed that copies of the Journal had
been placed in the committee room. She did not testify how or
when they were placed there, nor whether any Respondent GM
agent was aware of it.
Martin Andrew was called as a witness for the Acting Gen-
eral Counsel. At the time of his testimony, he was retired from
his GM Poletown employment, the last 2-1/2 years of which he
had served as a UAW plant chairperson. Although he testified
that he entered on duty for GM at Poletown in 1985, he did not
testify as to the date of his retirement. Darrah testified that
after her first confrontation with the security guard in mid-April
and before she renewed her Poletown Journal solicitation ef-
forts, she spoke to several persons about her right to do so, one
of whom was Andrew who she testified was a plant chairman.
The implication is that he held the position at that time, but the
record is not clear. How long Andrew remained in GM Pole-
town employment after that is unknown, assuming he was em-
ployed on that date.
Andrew testified in very general terms as to the sale of the
Journal in the Poletown plant in production areas, at the gates,
before shift commencement, at lunch, and “all day long” to GM
employees. He testified as to the placement for sale of the
Journal in the UAW committee room and admitted that GM
agents do not visit the UAW committee room. He identified
one such seller, i.e., a GM employee and identified himself also
as a Journal sales solicitor at the plant gate or in the committee
room. He identified no other sellers by name or by employ-
ment status. He testified that he observed Journal sales solicita-
tions and distributions to unnamed “foremen” and persons “in
management” by unidentified solicitors in unspecified areas of
the plant. He testified that he also had solicited Journal sales at
undisclosed areas in the plant in the presence of an unnamed
person whom he characterized as a “GM manager.” He testi-
fied that he had never been disciplined for this solicitation.
Andrew also testified that he observed the sales solicitation
by unidentified GM employees of other unidentified GM em-
ployees at undisclosed times and places in the plant for a vari-
ety of personal commercial products; e.g., Avon products.4 He
identified one such solicitor, GM employee Betty Johnson, as a
longtime in-plant production area purveyor of china glassware
products to unnamed “bosses” and office personnel.
In cross-examination, Andrew testified that UAW newslet-
ters are available to GM employees in the plant and that UAW
insignia and internal UAW political literature distributions are
widely tolerated in the plant. Confusingly, he also testified that
he personally only sold the Journal at the gate and nowhere
else. His inconsistent testimony on this point was not ex-
plained.
In addition to the generalized nature of Andrew’s testimony
already noted and its context-free nature, he also failed to spec-
ify on what dates these solicitations occurred. Thus, as the
Respondents argue, it is not clear as to whether Journal sales
and other solicitations occurred before, during, or after Dar-
rah’s termination. His retirement date is unknown.
3. The Journal
Al Derey, secretary-treasurer of Teamsters Local 372—one
of the six striking Detroit newspaper unions—testified for the
Acting General Counsel as to the nature of the Detroit Sunday
Journal. Derey is also the chairman of the six-union council.
Initially, he characterized the Journal as a “mass type handbill.”
He identified the articles of incorporation of the Journal, which
reveal it to be a nonprofit corporation created for the publica-
tion of an interim weekly Sunday newspaper that is to terminate
on cessation of the labor dispute. The Journal’s board of direc-
tors is composed of officers from the six striking unions, and
Derey is the vice president.
With respect to the purpose of the Journal, Derey testified
that its formation had several objectives. One objective was to
convey to the public the striking unions’ “side of the strike.”
Another was to give the strikers “something to do; i.e., profes-
sional, editorial, production, maintenance, and transportation
striking employees were utilized in the writing, composition,

4 There is no evidence of the sale of newspapers or magazines of any
nature in the Poletown facility or on the exterior GM premises.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 1048
and production of the Journal at a suburban independent print-
ing facility and distribution thereafter. Another stated purpose
was to assist the unions’ effort to effectuate a public boycott of
the struck newspapers. He testified that the Journal would
serve as an alternative newspaper and an alternative advertising
source for advertisers who boycotted the struck newspapers.
Derey also characterized the Journal as a “strike tool” and a
“morale booster’’ for strikers.
Derey testified the initial press run of the Journal was
300,000 weekly copies of which the unspecified “vast” prepon-
derance were distributed free, and 30,000 were sold “on the
street.” He testified that costs became abhorrent and produc-
tion was reduced to 150,000 copies at an undisclosed subse-
quent date. Thus, the Journal became a commercially viable
newspaper. Derey failed to testify what portions of subsequent
issues were distributed free and what portions were sold. He
testified that the receipts of sold editions were used to offset the
costs of production. He did not testify as to whether these costs
included any compensation to the striking employees who pro-
duced the Journal. There is no evidence that any monies were
used to defray the six unions’ negotiation and strike-related
litigation costs. Derey testified that the Journal was also funded
by unspecified donations to it by the International Unions of the
striking unions. He testified that the Journal’s distributors,
which included strikers and activist supporters, “sometimes”
returned all receipts to the Journal but that they “sometimes”
returned only the difference between the wholesale and retail
price.
The Acting General Counsel introduced into evidence nine
successive weekly issues of the Detroit Sunday Journal starting
with the March 24–30, 1996 issue and ending with the May 19–
25, 1996 issue. Under the masthead of each Journal is printed,
“A Publication By Striking Detroit Newspaper Workers.”
However, to characterize this publication as mere handout fliers
or leaflets is an insult to the professionalism of those persons
responsible for the product and its contents. Each issue consists
of 40 pages, the vast preponderance of which relates to interna-
tional, state, and city news concerning business, economic,
racial, political, cultural, entertainment, and sports interests
unrelated to the Detroit Newspaper strike. The Journal easily
compares in content, size, and quality to the best of metropoli-
tan suburban newspapers. Indeed, many small city and even
some large metropolitan publications suffer badly in compari-
son. Included in the Journal’s content is a national and local
sports section, television and motion picture listings, and enter-
tainment reviews by national syndicated columnists. There are
included restaurant listings and reviews, articles of general
interest, and articles supplied by national wire services that
appear across the country. There are advertisements predomi-
nantly for labor organizations and various law firms. But there
are also advertisements placed by a variety of many automobile
dealerships, transportation service companies, home improve-
ment contractors, personal hygiene specialists, the Shrine Cir-
cus, charitable raffles, loan companies, political candidates,
retail appliance stores, automotive service centers, a sports
complex, a sport supply store, a snowmobile outlet, a talk radio
station, a new book publication, an optical retailer, religious
organizations, a private college, a recorded music retail outlet,
realtors, a job fair, a national bookstore chain promotion for
recorded musical compact discs, video rental stores, a theatrical
performance, a jewelry store, a recall notice by the Ford Motor
Company, and a national drugstore chain. The Journal also
includes several pages of classified ads paid for by individuals.
The Detroit Sunday Journal however, quality of editorial
content aside, does not compare favorably in extensiveness and
depth of news coverage and more so in the variety and exten-
siveness of advertisers enjoyed by the two large metropolitan
newspapers.
The opinion page and various news articles can be inter-
preted to be sympathetic to organized labor in general, but arti-
cles relating to the newspaper strike and the point of view of
the striking unions is not as extensive as what might be ex-
pected from its description as a “strike tool.” They are in fact
sparse, overwhelmed by coverage of unrelated matters, and
buried within interior pages.
Reference to the Detroit newspaper strike for each 40-page
issue was as follows:

March 24–30, 1966 pages 3, 10, 11
March 31–April 6, 1966 pages 1, 14
April 7–13, 1966 pages 10, 11
April 14–20, 1966 pages 3, 9, 10, 15
April 21–27, 1966 page 9
April 28–May 5, 1966 pages 3, 9, 15
May 5–11, 1996 pages 3, 8
May 12–18, 1996 page 6
May 19–25, 1966 pages, 3–8

Of these articles, most consisted of much less than one page.
Some were found on the “Opinion” page, which more often
related to nonstrike-related issues. Some articles purported to
be a factual account of an ongoing unfair labor practice pro-
ceeding involving the struck newspapers and the DNA. Others
consisted of a human interest account of a strike-related matter.
One page, i.e., page 9 of the May 5–11, 1996 issue, consisted of
a whole page advertisement soliciting support of a boycott of
U.S.A. Today, a publication of Gannett Corporation, the owner
of the struck Detroit News. There were also sparsely spaced
various unions’ advertisements in support of the Journal itself,
but not explicitly strike referenced.
The security reports related to the distribution of the April
21–27 and May 19–25 issues. The only reference to the strike
in the April 21–27 issue on page 9 was a supposedly factual
account of what transpired at the opening session of an unfair
labor practice proceeding involving the newspaper dispute and
a smaller account of several newspaper picket line confronta-
tions. The May 19–25 issue on pages 3 and 8 contained articles
sympathetic to the strikers. Neither of these issues referenced
these articles on the first page section which listed noteworthy
articles within the paper. Nothing in these articles can be con-
strued as a clarion call to some kind of supportive action. The
same can be said of the vast preponderance of strike commen-
tary. Of course, the implied objective clearly was to arouse the
sympathy of the reader for the plight of the striker and animos-
ity toward the newspapers’ negotiators. The first page of each
issue, except for the identification as a striking Detroit News-
TRIANGLE ELECTRIC CO. 1049
paper Worker publication, was formatted as a commercial,
general circulation, general news publication.
The March 24–30 issue headlined a federal witness protec-
tion effort for a “Detroit Mafia” prosecution. A side reference
alluded to an interior story regarding, inter alia, the unfair labor
practice proceeding and a brief account of staff restructuring at
the struck newspapers related to a strike-related drop in reader-
ship. The March 31–April 6 issue headlined a newspaper strike
rally but referred to no interior strike-related news. All issues
thereafter, up to the May 19–25 issue had no front-page refer-
ence to any newspaper strike-related matter. Their headlines
were as follows:

March 24: “In harm’s way—Witnesses against mob
get U.S. protection”
April 7: “Medicine on the move—Mobile health clinic
serves Macomb County’s needy”
April 14: “On the record: Wings want Cup”/”Chemo
overdoes blamed in death at Beaumont”
April 21: “The bomb’s echo—Oklahoma City haunts
Michigan town”
April 28: “Lives at Risk—Breakdowns plague city
ambulances”
May 5: “Hardball—U.S. cracks down on ex-Tiger
McLain”
May 12: “Breaking the silence—Cop who reported
sergeant sues, claiming retaliation”

If the objective of the Detroit Sunday Journal’s creators was
to construct a product that offered some value for money as a
serious purveyor of news and human interest features rather
than a mere propaganda blurb seeking gratuities, I find that they
were totally successful.
B. Analysis
The Acting General Counsel’s theory of violation was set
forth in oral argument and supplementary brief. It is a very
simple and straightforward argument. The Acting General
Counsel’s argument is as follows: The striking Detroit news-
paper employees were engaged in concerted activities for the
“purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protec-
tion . . .” and thus, were protected by the Act. Employees of
another employer not involved in the primary dispute may
make common cause with the employees of the primary em-
ployer and, thus, by such alliance, gain the protection of the
Act. NLRB v. Eastex, Inc., 437 U.S. 556 (1978); Boise Cas-
cade Corp., 300 NLRB 80, 81–82 (1990). In Eastex, id. 563–
566, the Supreme Court rejected arguments that the protection
of the Act does not extend to a situation where the secondary
employer and secondary employees have no dispute. The
Court held that the “mutual aid and protection” clause of the
Act extends to employees who act in support of another em-
ployer’s employees; the Court cited well settled Board law on
that point, including, inter alia, Yellow Cab, Inc., 210 NLRB
568, 569 (1974) (right to distribute literature in support of an-
other employer’s employees). In Boise, supra, the Board held
that the wearing of union insignia, which is normally protected
when worn by a primary employee in support of a union at the
primary employer unless disruptive, is also protected when
worn by an employee of an employer not related to the dispute
at that employer’s premises in support of other employees in a
dispute with another employer.
The Acting General Counsel further reasoned that Darrah
had been protected in her attendance at strike rallies, an action
in sympathy of the newspaper strike, and similarly she was
protected by “. . . the distribution of a strike organ essentially; a
newspaper put out by the striking newspaper workers for the
purpose of advancing their cause.” Counsel further argued that
Darrah’s purpose in distributing, in conjunction with selling
copies of and home delivery subscriptions to the Journal “was
to educate the public about the Detroit newspaper strike, to
garner subscriptions for the Journal, which would be to the
benefit of the striking workers, and to alert people generally to
the ongoing activities on behalf of the striking newspaper
workers by rallies and so forth.” Counsel for the Acting Gen-
eral Counsel argued that the Journal “wasn’t just a newspaper
[but] it was sort of a glorified union newsletter,” and thus con-
certed protected activity.
The Acting General Counsel conceded that to be culpable,
GM would have to have had “reasonable notice of the con-
certedness of the activity.”5 She cited as evidence of GM
knowledge the Pinkerton security guards’ reports which re-
ferred to “strike papers” and “strikers newspapers.” Counsel
argues that coupled with evidence of extensive distribution of
the Journal within the plant to foremen and managers, Respon-
dent GM had the requisite knowledge.
The Acting General Counsel next argues that because the
distribution and sale of the Sunday Journal allied Darrah with
the newspaper striking employees, she was therefore engaged
in concerted activity for mutual aid and protection. As such,
her conduct was the cause of her job loss pursuant to an unlaw-
fully broad no-solicitation/no-distribution rule; i.e., the more
restrictive rule applied to non-GM employees working at the
Poletown site. An employer may not lawfully restrict the dis-
tribution rights of employees of other employers lawfully and
regularly present on its property, while simultaneously permit-
ting its own employees the right of distribution on its property
in nonworking areas in the absence of some serious impairment
of its managerial prerogatives. Gayfers Department Store, 324
NLRB 1246 (1997); Southern Services, 300 NLRB 1154
(1990), enfd. 954 F.2d 700 (11th Cir. 1992); see Republic Avia-
tion Corp. v. NLRB, 324 U.S. 793 (1945).
Accordingly, it is argued that Darrah was unlawfully termi-
nated from her employment. The General Counsel further and
alternatively argues that the Respondents applied its no-
distribution rule discriminatorily against Darrah wherein it
tolerated a variety of solicitations in the Poletown plant, includ-
ing the Journal itself.
As to the nature of the Detroit Sunday Journal, the Acting
General Counsel stresses the fact that it was produced and dis-
tributed by striking employees and supporters; was a striker
morale booster; provided to the public the striking unions’
viewpoint; provided an alternative paper for those who desired
to support the striking unions’ boycott of the struck papers; had
advertisements by sympathetic unions and law firms (i.e., pre-

5 See Meyers Industries, 268 NLRB 493, 497 (1984) (Meyers I).
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 1050
sumably sympathetic); was funded (in undisclosed part) by the
six striking unions’ International Union; was of interim dura-
tion; and was nonprofit in nature. The Acting General Counsel
concluded: “In these many ways the Journal is not an ordinary
commercial enterprise. It is to the contrary, a protected exten-
sion of the striking newspaper employees’ labor dispute.” The
Acting General Counsel finally cited Darrah’s Journal sales
solicitation as the “logical outgrowth” of her various other ac-
tivities in support of the strikers, of which there is no evidence
of Respondent GM’s knowledge.
The Charging Party’s argument tracks that of the Acting
General Counsel. The Charging Party, however, argues further
that because GM’s no-distribution rule was unlawfully broad,
any enforcement of it is unlawful. Under this theory, even
distribution activity not engaged in for mutual aid or protection
would be protected; e.g., solicitations for the New York Times.
I find this suggestion unsupported by Board precedent. Clearly,
it is necessary to determine whether or not Darrah’s distribution
of the Journal at the Poletown plant consisted of activity that
can be defined as protected because of its alliance with and
support of the striking newspaper employees and its concerted
nature was known to GM. The Respondents argue that her
activity does not fall within the mutual aid and protection
clause of the Act because it amounted to sales activity on behalf
of a product which, although authored and published by strik-
ers, essentially constituted a commercial venture at least for all
purposes apparent to Respondent GM which was not proven to
be aware of anything more than what its masthead banner pro-
claimed. The Respondents argue correctly, and I find in
agreement, that Andrew’s testimony as to the sale and distribu-
tion of the Journal at and in the Poletown plant lacks probative
valued for the reasons found above. Accordingly, there is no
probative evidence that Respondent GM’s agents, including
Pinkerton security guards, were aware that the Detroit Sunday
Journal was anything more than the product of striking employ-
ees as an alternative or a supplement to the product of their
struck employer.6
There is no evidence that GM or its agents were aware of Dar-
rah’s collateral activities on behalf of the striking workers, nor of
the subjective motivation of its publishers and supporters and
Darrah herself. It is a matter of surmise whether any GM agent,
including the Pinkerton security guards, delved into the inner
pages of the Journal and read that disproportionally small seg-
ment related to the strike or to the unfair labor practice proceed-
ing related to it. The mere act of supporting or doing business
with a newspaper published by strikers does not per se constitute
concerted protected activity. In Wilkes-Barre Publishing Co.,

6 The issue in this case does not involve an evaluation of whether the
Sunday Journal constituted a serious economic threat to the struck
newspapers. That issue was evaluated by Judge Karl H. Buschmann in
a decision issued by him on March 10, 1999, JD–21–99, Case 7–CA–
40012. One of the issues resolved by Judge Buschmann was whether
the striking unions’ publication of the Detroit Sunday Journal consti-
tuted a conflict of interest which impaired their representational capac-
ity. He found that it did not. The Charging Party’s reliance upon Judge
Buschmann’s decision in its letter of March 10, 1999, is misplaced.
266 NLRB 438, 440 (1983),7 Administrative Law Judge Joel
Harmatz, whose decision was adopted by the Board, stated:

The question presented is whether “concerted activities for the
purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protec-
tion . . . “ought to be extended to favor one business competitor
over another simply because the former was organized and
maintained by aggrieved employees of the latter. To ask the
question is to answer it.

The issue before Judge Harmatz was whether the struck em-
ployer-newspaper unlawfully terminated an employee who had
placed an advertisement in a newspaper published by striking
employees. Judge Harmatz found:

In short, Respondent was free to meet the competitive chal-
lenge presented by the latter without limitation or constraint
from the National Labor Relations Act. The newspaper
founded and maintained by the strikers is not, for purposes of
Section 7 of the Act, the analogue of strike action, and hence,
contrary to the General Counsel, Martin’s placement of the ad
did not have inherent characteristics of statutorily protected
conduct.

In that case, unlike here, the employee had no intention of aid-
ing the strike effort but intended it as a simple personal busi-
ness matter. The General Counsel there had argued that the
mere contribution to the strikers’ paper was protected regard-
less of employee intent. Judge Harmatz observed that “it is the
nature of the employee’s activity, as distinguished from intent,
which determines protected status,” citing Smithfield Packing
Co., 258 NLRB 261 (1981); Brown & Root, Inc., 246 NLRB
33, 36–37 (1979); and Ohio Valley Graphic Arts, Inc., 234
NLRB 493 (1978).
In evaluating the employee’s objective conduct of doing
business with the strikers’ newspaper, he considered the nature
of the strikers’ newspaper which he found to have constituted a
serious, viable competitor to the struck newspaper. As I stated,
the issue of the Detroit Sunday Journal’s status as a serious
economic competitor to the struck newspapers is not before me.
However, I believe the nature of the publication is relevant to a
determination of whether it was propaganda strike tool to which
was appended nonstrike-related material, or whether it was
essentially an alternative product produced by striking employ-
ees with minimal pro-strike news coverage. If it had been the
former, there hardly would be an issue. Because it is the latter,
a serious question arises, even if publication of such organ can
be considered to be activity engaged in for mutual aid and pro-
tection. The Respondents argue that the sale and distribution of
such publication by an employee not involved in the dispute,
and which does not relate to their employment relationship,
exceeds the limits of the Act’s protection. The Respondents
quote the Supreme Court’s language in Eastex Corp., supra at
567–568:

It is true, of course, that some concerted activity bears a less
immediate relationship to employees’ interests as employees
than other such activity. We may assume that at some point the
relationship becomes so attenuated that an activity cannot fairly
7 Cited by Judge Buschmann.
TRIANGLE ELECTRIC CO. 1051
be deemed to come within the “mutual aid or protection”
clause.

The Acting General Counsel and Charging Party counsel ar-
gue that the limited content of the Journal’s factual and edito-
rial reference to the striking employees position is sufficient to
render the entire product protected by the mutual aid and pro-
tection clause. The Charging Party counsel points to the
Board’s rationale in its underlying decision in Eastex holding
that extraneous inclusions do not detract from a leaflet’s pro-
tected status. Eastex, Inc., 215 NLRB 271, 274 (1974). It also
alludes to Veeder-Root, 237 NLRB 1175 (1978), which in-
volved a notice for a May Day rally partially concerning work-
ing conditions and partially attacking economic corporation.
The Charging Party counsel cites the language of the Fifth Cir-
cuit Court of Appeals in Reef Industries v. NLRB, 952 F.2d 839
(5th Cir. 1992), wherein a sarcastic letter and T-shirt was held
to be protected:

. . . the tee shift incident . . . was intimately connected
. . . with union activity.

Neither the Acting General Counsel nor Charging Party cite
any precedent where sale of a 40-page, ostensible general circu-
lation newspaper comes within the purview of the Act’s mutual
aid and protection clause because certain references therein
related to employees’ mutual aid and protection and a great
proportion of which were purportedly factual reports. If a gen-
eral circulation newspaper prints articles relating to the mini-
mum wage law or to presidential vetoes favorable to working
employees, does sale of that newspaper in Poletown become
protected for that issue? Is it not protected for all issues?
I conclude that Respondent GM and its Pinkerton agents
only had notice that Darrah was distributing in conjunction with
and promotion of a solicitation of sales of issues of and sub-
scriptions for home delivery of an apparent general circulation
newspaper produced by striking newspaper workers and was
not proven to be sufficiently aware of limited aspects of its
content related to employees’ mutual aid and protection and
therefore did not violate the Act by enforcing its distribution
rule against its sale and distribution. I further find that the
striking newspaper employees and their unions produced and
distributed a facially professional, commercial, wide circulation
news product which, as a whole, was not so intimately and
objectively related to employees’ mutual aid and protection that
the mere selling of it constituted, per se, protected activity un-
der the Act. Accordingly, I find that Darrah was not engaged in
activity protected under the Act and the Respondents did not
violate the Act with respect to her ejection from and loss of
employment at Poletown.
I further find that the Acting General Counsel has proven
that Respondent GM did maintain an overly broad no-
solicitation/no-distribution rule which prohibited employees
working at its Hamtrack, Michigan plant not directly employed
by the Respondent from soliciting or distributing in that plant.
Inasmuch as that rule can reasonably be interpreted to prohibit
the protected concerted activities of those employees, i.e., pro-
tected solicitation at nonworking times or protected distribu-
tions in nonworking areas, it is on its face unlawful and viola-
tive of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act as alleged in the complaint.
MBI Acquisition Corp., supra. Southern Services, supra; Re-
public Aviation Corp. v. NLRB, supra.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. By maintaining a rule at its Hamtramck, Michigan plant,
which prohibits non-GM employees from engaging in the con-
certed activity of solicitation protected by the Act during non-
working times and distribution protected by the Act in non-
working areas, Respondent GM violated Section 8(a)(1) of the
Act.
2. In no other manner did Respondent GM violate the Act,
and in no manner did Respondent Triangle violate the Act.
THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent GM has violated Section
8(a)(1) of the Act by maintaining a facially invalid no-
solicitation/no-distribution rule, I shall recommend that it be
ordered to rescind or modify that rule so that non-GM employ-
ees working at its Hamtramck, Michigan plant are not prohib-
ited from solicitation or distribution for purposes protected by
Section 7 of the Act during nonworking time in nonworking
areas of the Respondent’s Hamtramck, Michigan plant.
[Recommended Order omitted from publication.]