United Aircraft Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 10, 1962

139 N.L.R.B. 39 (N.L.R.B. 1962)

UNITED AIRCRAFT CORP., PRATT & WHITNEY DIVISION 39
United Aircraft Corporation , Pratt and Whitney Aircraft Divi-
sion and International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft
and Agricultural Implement Workers of America , UAW, AFL-
CIO, and its Local #1234. Case No. 1-C.4-3081. October 10,
1962
DECISION AND ORDER
On October 7, 1960, Trial Examiner Paul Bisgyer issued his Inter-
mediate 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 attached Inter-
mediate Report. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the
Intermediate Report and a supporting brief. The Charging Parties
filed exceptions.
The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner
at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed.
The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Inter-
mediate Report, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in
the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions,' and recommen-
dations of the Trial Examiner, except as modified below .2
ORDER
Upon the entire record in the 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, United Aircraft
Corporation, Pratt and Whitney Aircraft Division, North Haven,
Connecticut, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from promulgating or enforcing any rule or
order prohibiting employees, when they are on nonworking time and
in nonworking areas of the plant, from distributing any leaflets, hand-
bills, circulars, or other literature on behalf of International Union,
United Automobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Workers
of America, UAW, AFL-CIO, and its Local #1234, or from in any
like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing em-
ployees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to bargain
1
In reaching this decision the Board has not considered the evidence relating to the
leaflets distributed while Greenberg was administrator of the Union to be relevant. Accord-
ingly, we express no opinion on the question of whether the Greenberg leaflets contained
scurrilous material, or whether, if they did, Respondent could restrict their distribution
by employees on its property.
2 Notwithstanding their continuous objection to the Board 's modification of the so-called
nonworking time rule , as expressed in their dissent in Stoddard-Quark Manufacturing Co.,
138 NLRB 615 ( September 18, 1962 ), Members Fanning and Brown adhere to the
majority ' s decision in that case for the purpose of this decision
139 NLRB No. 12.
40 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
collectively through representatives of their own choosing, or to
engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining
or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any or all such
activities.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Notify the above-named Union, in writing, that it has rescinded
its order prohibiting employees, when they are on nonworking time
and in nonworking areas of the plant, from distributing on their own
time on company property any leaflets, handbills, circulars, or other
literature on behalf of the above-named Union and that the employees
may resume such distribution.
(b) Post at its plant in North Haven, Connecticut, copies of the
notice attached hereto marked "Appendix." 3 Copies of said notice,
to be furnished by the Regional Director for the First Region, shall,
after being signed by Respondent's authorized representative, be
posted by the Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be
maintained by it for a period of 60 consecutive days thereafter, in
conspicuous places, including all places where notices to its employees
are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Re-
spondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered
by any other material.
(c) Notify the Regional Director for the First Region, in writing,
within 10 days from the date of receipt of this Order, what steps the
Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
MEMBERS RODGERS and LEEDOM took no part in the consideration of
the above Decision and Order.
8 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."
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to a Decision and Order of the National Labor Relations
Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify our employees that:
WE WILL NOT promulgate or enforce any rule or order pro-
hibiting our employees, when they are on nonworking time and
in nonworking areas of the plant, from distributing any leaflets,
handbills, circulars, or other literature on behalf of International
Union, United Automobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Implement
Workers of America, UAW, AFL-CIO, and its Local #1234,
or in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce
our employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization,
UNITED AIRCRAFT CORP ., PRATT & WHITNEY DIVISION 41
to form labor organizations , to join or assist any labor organiza-
tion, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own
choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the pur-
pose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or
to refrain from any or all such activities.
UNITED AIRCRAFT CORPORATION, PRATT
AND WHITNEY AIRCRAFT DIVISION,
Employer.
Dated---------------- By-------------------------------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof,
and must not be altered , defaced, or covered by any other material.
Employees may communicate directly with the Board's Regional
Office, 24 School Street, Boston 8, Massachusetts, Telephone Number,
Lafayette 3-3100, if they have any question concerning this notice or
compliance with its provisions.
INTERMEDIATE REPORT AND RECOMMENDED ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This proceeding, with all the parties represented , was heard before Trial Examiner
Paul Bisgyer in New Haven , Connecticut , on May 18 , 19, and 20 , 1960, on complaint
of the General Counsel and amended answer of United Aircraft Corporation, Pratt
and Whitney Aircraft Division , herein called the Respondent . The complaint alleges
that the Respondent violated Section 8(a) (1) of the Act in that since September 16,
1959, it has prevented its employees from distributing literature of International
Union , United Automobile , Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Workers of America,
UAW, AFL-CIO, and its Local # 1234, herein jointly called the Union , on or around
the parking lots of the Respondent 's North Haven , Connecticut , plant . In its answer,
as amended at the hearing, the Respondent admits the facts alleged in the complaint
but denies that it thereby committed any unfair labor practices . At the conclusion
of the hearing , the parties presented oral argument . Thereafter, the parties filed
briefs which have been carefully considered.
Upon the entire record , and from my observation of the witnesses , I make the
following:
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
The Respondent , a Delaware corporation with its principal office and place of
business at East Hartford , Connecticut , maintains one of its plants in North Haven,
Connecticut, which is here involved , where it is engaged in the manufacture, sale,
and distribution of aircraft engines and related products . In the course of its business,
the Respondent annually ships from its said plant finished products valued in excess
of $50,000 to points outside this State.
I find that the Respondent is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section
2(6) and (7) of the Act, and that it will effectuate the policies of the Act to assert
jurisdiction herein.
U. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
The parties agreed , and I find, that International Union , United Automobile, Air-
craft and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, UAW, AFL-CIO, and its
Local #1234, are labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Facts
Since the International 's certification by the National Labor Relations Board in
1953, Local # 1234 has maintained contractual relations with the Respondent as the
collective-bargaining representative of the Respondent 's production and maintenance
employees at its North Haven plant . In effect at all times material herein was a 2-
42 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
year contract due to expire on May 15, 1960, unless automatically renewed. At the
time of the hearing, there were approximately 4,100 to 4,200 employees in the bar-
gaining unit covered by this contract.
Before 1956 the Union distributed its literature among employees at places off the
Respondent's premises. In that year the Respondent granted the Union permission
for employees to distribute union literature on their own time on the Respondent's
property at the two tunnel entrances to the plant which employees customarily use
to get to work after parking their cars on adjacent company parking lots. Thereafter,
before reporting for work, employees distributed union handbills and leaflets at the
designated places until September 16, 1959,1 when the Respondent withdrew its per-
mission and barred further use of its premises for such purposes following the events
described below.
In the latter part of June, shortly after Warren Chamberlain, an employee, became
president of Local #1234, Wilfred E. Hall, personnel supervisor of the North Haven
plant, summoned Chamberlain to his office to discuss the prospect of improving
relations between the Union and the Respondent, which had been deteriorating dur-
ing the administration of Chamberlain's predecessors in office. Among other things,
Hall suggested, in substance, the advisability of bringing the Union's complaints and
problems to him for discussion, or including them in an agenda letter for manage-
ment's consideration under the contractual grievance procedure, before airing them
in leaflets. He also expressed the Respondent's resentment of leaflets of the type
issued and distributed by Greenberg, an International representative who administered
the local's affairs before Chamberlain's election. These leaflets, Hall stated, vilified
the Respondent's officials and contained untruths and unfounded accusations. The
Respondent introduced in evidence two such leaflets which characterized its officials
as 'SFascist," "Communist," and "Storm Trooper." 2 During the course of their
conversation, Chamberlain mentioned to Hall the Union's dissatisfaction with certain
cafeteria conditions,3 the delay employees encountered when leaving the parking lots
for home at the close of their shift, and the poor ventilation in the plant.
Beginning about June 23 until September 16 Chamberlain, as president of Local
#1234, prepared a series of leaflets which employees distributed at the tunnel
entrances to the plant, as it was then customary to do.4 These leaflets criticized the
food served in the cafeterias, the high prices charged, and the use of unclean trays;
voiced unremedied complaints about poor ventilation in the plant, the slow move-
ment of employee traffic out of the plant, and other working conditions; objected to
Respondent's manner of handling grievances; urged members to vote in elections for
committeemen and stewards; appealed to nonmembers to join the Union; 5 and
pointed out that an increase in membership was essential in order to secure a better
collective-bargaining contract than that then in effect. It is clear, however, that these
leaflets did not contain the objectionable characterizations of company officials which
appeared in the earlier Greenberg leaflets mentioned above.
Personnel Supervisor Hall testified, without contradiction, that at a grievance meet-
ing with the Union held on July 10 his superior, Personnel Manager Morse, criticized
the leaflets the Union was distributing and specifically singled out the objectionable
matter in the leaflets previously issued by International Representative Greenberg.
Hall further testified that Morse reminded the Union's committeemen that the
Union was enjoying only a privilege, not a right, to distribute its literature on com-
pany property and that this privilege could be lost.
1 Unless otherwise indicated, all events occurred in 1959
2 These leaflets were distributed on or about May 12 and 27. The first one charged the
Respondent's supervisors with unlawfully inducing employees to resign from the Union.
The second one sharply criticized the Respondent's handling of grievances and treatment
of employees.
3 The two cafeterias in the plant, as well as those in the Respondent's other plants, are
operated by a licensee. C. R Brown Cafeterias, pursuant to the terms of an agreement with
the Respondent. Among other provisions, the licensee is required to furnish meals for the
Respondent's officers and employees "at the lowest cost consistent with the best quality of
food, prepared and served under bygienic conditions."
' It appears that during this period, the Union also distributed three other leaflets which
were not drafted by Chamberlain. These leaflets announced the pending termination of
the International's administration of the local's affairs ; urged members to select compe-
tent stewards and committeemen to represent them; announced a forthcoming grievance
meeting with the Respondent ; and complained about the failure of Respondent's Vice
President Burke to meet with the Union to discuss employee vacations
6It appears that, out of an estimated 3,500 to 3,800 employees in the bargaining unit
in September, about 1,700 to 1,800 were members of Local #1234.
UNITED AIRCRAFT CORP ., PRATT & WHITNEY DIVISION 43
Notwithstanding Morse's admonition , the Union continued with its employee
distribution of the leaflets prepared by Chamberlain. There is no question that the
Respondent was irked by the content of these leaflets. According to Chamberlain's
undisputed testimony , which I credit, Assistant Personnel Manager Corper , at another
grievance meeting held about the beginning of September , berated Chamberlain for
telling the Respondent how to run its cafeterias and added that the cafeterias were
operated for the convenience of employees and that their operation might be
discontinued.
During the first part of September and for about a period of 2 weeks, employees
scheduled to take their lunch at 11 and 11 : 15 a.m. refused to patronize the cafeterias.
Instead , they brought their own lunch and booed anyone who approached the food
line. Although Hall testified that Chamberlain 's leaflets incited this conduct, no
complaint was made to Chamberlain to correct the situation. In any event, this
booing ceased as soon as the Respondent threatened to take disciplinary action.
On September 16, Hall called Chamberlain to his office and advised him that the
Union had abused .the privilege of distributing union literature on company property
and that the Respondent was therefore withdrawing its permission. Although Hall
alluded to a so-called Celentano incident 6 and a littering problem ,7 it is clear, as the
Respondent admits in its brief , that the sole reason for the Respondent 's action was
its disapproval of the contents of the leaflets that were being distributed. As Hall
testified, he informed Chamberlain on this occasion, as he had done previously, that
the Respondent objected to the "distribution of flyers which were designed to incite
employees and to tell them what a lousy place Pratt Whitney was to work"; that
the Respondent did not intend to make its "front porch, so to speak, available for
the distribution of literature" which had such a purpose; and that Chamberlain's
flyers were appreciably no different from Greenberg's, "no matter how subtly
Chamberlain might have attempted to write" them.
Since the Respondent 's ban on employee distribution of union literature on com-
pany property, employees have been distributing the Union's leaflets on a public
highway at the foot of the ramp leading to the Respondent's parking lots as employees
drive their automobiles on to the ramp to go to work. The General Counsel and
the Union view these conditions as very hazardous whereas the Respondent asserts
the contrary.
For the purpose of showing the type of information the Union continues to
circulate among employees after the imposition of its ban, the Respondent put in
evidence three leaflets distributed off the Company 's premises . Like the Union's
other handbills, these leaflets contain organizational matter; are highly critical of the
Respondent's failure to improve cafeteria conditions , as well as other conditions of
employment; and refer to "The Work Order Scandal" 'and the "Ghost of Maloney" 8
as subjects to be discussed in future leaflets . However, the promised leaflets were
never issued.
B. Contentions of the parties
The Respondent denies that it violated the Act by prohibiting its employees to
distribute union literature on their own time on company porperty. It contends that
he Union's fliers "encouraged and contributed" to the disturbance in the cafeteria"
and that therefore it was justified in imposing the ban in order to maintain produc-
tion, order , and discipline in the plant. It further argues that it is not obligated to
permit the Union to use its property for the purpose of circulating leaflets which
vilify the Respondent and contain irresponsible and deliberately misleading state-
ments, and in which the Union airs its complaints without first discussing them with
the Respondent or submitting them to the contractual grievance procedure, as
contemplated by the Act. Finally, the Respondent urges that the Union has adequate
alternative means for distributing its literature off the Respondent's premises at the
ramp entrance to the plant and that therefore the Respondent is not required to
furnish the Union company facilities for such purpose.
The General Counsel and the Union, on the other hand, contend, in substance,
that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act for the reasons that it
failed to show special circumstances justifying the ban on employee distribution on
8 This incident occurred in December 1958 when Celentano , an employee and then the
president of Local #1234, allegedly used improper language while handing out leaflets.
As a result , Celentano was permanently barred from distributing leaflets on company
property.
9 Hall admitted that no complaint was registered with Chamberlain about this so-called
litter problem so that Chamberlain could take steps to correct it
8 The evidence indicates that the name referred to a deceased United States Senator.
44 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
company property, as required by the Board's decision in the Walton case; 9 that the
contents of the Union's literature, no matter how objectionable to the Respondent, do
not constitute special circumstances under the cited decision; and that, in any
event, the statements in the leflets were privileged and, if any exceeded proper
bounds, only employee circulation of these leaflets containing such statements may
be prohibited on its property. The General Counsel further argues that employees'
right to circulate union literature on company property on their own time does
not depend on whether or not other avenues of communication are available to the
Union and that, at any rate, there are no other adequate facilities for effectively
reaching the Respondent's employees. Lastly, the General Counsel urges that the
contractual grievance procedure cannot justify the ban here because the leaflets cir-
culated were organizational in nature and also served as a privileged medium of
communication between the Union and the employees it represented.
C. Concluding findings
Only recently the Board, in the Walton case, reconsidered the question of the right
of employees to solicit union membership and to distribute union literature on com-
pany premises in the light of Supreme Court decisions. Insofar as relevant to the
issues herein, the Board restated the law as follows:
No-solicitation or no-distribution rules which prohibit union solicitation or
distribution of union literature on company property by employees during their
nonworking time are presumptively an unreasonable impediment to self-organi-
zation, and are therefore presumptively invalid both as to their promulgation and
enforcement; however, such rules may be validated by evidence that special
circumstances make the rule necessary in order to maintain production or
discipline.
This recognition of employees' right to limited access to company property is the
result of a careful adjustment worked out by the Board, with court approval, between
employees' undisputed right to engage in organizational and concerted activities for
their mutual aid and protection guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, and the equally
undisputed right of employers to control their property as they see fit. As indicated
above, this adjustment preserves management's prerogative to deny employees access
to its property to distribute union literature where such denial is necessary to maintain
production or discipline in the plant Moreover, as the employees' right to distribute
union literature is but an incident of their right to assist labor unions and to engage
in concerted activities, statutory protection attaches only to matters of legitimate
concern to them in their capacity as employees such as, the betterment of working
conditions 10 or organizing their fellow workers. On the other hand, this protection
is not lost simply because the information imparted is not entirely accurate, or is
exaggerated or objectionable to the employer, provided, of course, .the information is
not deliberately false or maliciously inspired." Were it otherwise, the freedom of
expression and communication enjoyed by employees, unions, and employers alike
would be very tenuous and dubious.
Applying the foregoing principles to the facts of this case, I find that the Respond-
ent's prohibition of employees distribution of union literature on its property during
nonworking hours violated Section 8(a) (1) of the Act.12 Clearly, this ban was
prompted .by the leaflets employees distributed while Chamberlain was president of
the local. As indicated above, these leaflets dealt with matters of vital concern to
employees as employees, and had the objectives of improving their working condi-
tions, including conditions in the cafeteria,13 negotiating a better contract than that
PWalton Manufacturing Company, 126 NLRB 697
10Jefferson Standard Broadcasting Company, 94 NLRB 1507, 1511-1512, affil sub nom.
NLRB v. Local Union No 1229, Inte, national Brotherhood of Electrical Workers,
346 U S 464
11 Cf Marlin Firearms Company, 116 NLRB 1834 , 1839-1840; El Mundo Broadcasting
Corporation, 108 NLRB 1270, 1278-1280; Paul Cusano, et al, trading as American Shuffle-
board Company, et al, 92 NLRB 1272, 1274-1275, enfd 190 F 2d 898 (C.A 3)
12 Contrary to the implication in the Respondent's brief, I find that the principle of the
Walton case is applicable here whether the Respondent's ban is viewed as the promulga-
tion of a rule or order or the withdrawal of permission to employees to circulate union
literature on its property
1a There is no question that the quality of food served in the cafeterias and the prices
charged were matters of legitimate concern to employees and related to their terms and
conditions of employment . Cf. Weyerhauser Timber, Company, 87 NLRB 672 In fact,
UNITED AIRCRAFT CORP., PRATT & WHITNEY DIVISION 45
then in effect, organizing the unorganized employees, and strengthening the Union.
Although the Union's criticism of the Respondent in these leaflets was sharp and
definitely not without partisan appeal, and understandably irritating to the Respond-
ent, it did not exceed the proper bounds of lawful comment and concerted activity. It
is significant that no evidence was adduced at the hearing to show that these state-
ments were deliberately untrue or maliciously inspired. On the contrary, Chamber-
lain credibly testified that his criticism of cafeteria conditions was based on per-
sonal experience and reports from other employees. Nor do I find that the employees
lost their right to distribute union literature on company property simply because
about 4 months before the ban, Chamberlain's predecessor, Greenberg, as the local's
administrator, issued two leaflets characterizing the Respondent's officials as "Com-
munist," "Fascist," and "Storm Trooper." Clearly, such epithets, to the Union's
credit, were not repeated in the later Chamberlain leaflets which precipitated the ban
and therefore cannot support, at least for that reason, the Respondent's blanket ban
on employee distribution of all union literature on company property.14 Another
question, however, would have been presented here had the Respondent cofined its
ban to the circulation of union leaflets containing language of the type found in the
two Greenberg leaflets, which appears to have gone beyond the pale of protected
concerted activity-15 But this the Respondent obviously did not do.
I further find that the record does not support the Respondent's contention that
special circumstances were present which justified barring employees from distribut-
ing union literature on their own time on company property. The Respondent's as-
sertion that the Union 's leaflets encouraged and contributed to the disturbances in
the cafeteria is not sustained by the evidence. Not only is there nothing in the
leaflets which advocated such action , but it is just as reasonable to infer that the
employees engaged in such conduct on their own to dramatize their protest against
the Respondent's failure to satisfy their complaints about cafeteria conditions,
whether these complaints were real or fancied. Moreover, even assuming that the
leaflets incited the booing in the cafeteria, the Respondent has not demonstrated that
the ban was necessary to the maintenance of production or discipline. Indeed, the
record shows the contrary, for, as soon as the Respondent threatened employees with
disciplinary action if the booing did not cease, this conduct stopped.
As stated above, the Respondent also contends that it was privileged to deny em-
ployees access to its property for distributing union literature on their own time be-
cause other avenues of communication with employees were available to the Union
and because the Union did not seek adjustment of its complaints through the con-
tractual grievance procedure but, instead, ,aired them in its leaflets. I find no merit
in this contention. With respect to other avenues of communication, the Supreme
Court and the Board have made it unequivocally clear that their availability to the
Union has no relevance where an employee's right to distribute union literature is in-
volved as distinguished from a nonemployee's right which depends on the lack of
other effective means of reaching employees.16 For this reason , I find it un-
the Respondent invited the Union to bring such complaints to it and provided in its con-
tract with C. R. Brown Cafeterias for the service of food of good quality to its employees
at reasonable prices.
14 As indicated previously, the Respondent put in evidence several leaflets which were
circulated off the Respondent's premises after the imposition of the ban herein involved.
Obviously, these leaflets can also have no material bearing on the lawfulness of the Re-
spondent 's earlier ban.
is Cf. E A. Laboratories, Inc., 88 NLRB 673, 674-675, where the Board found that the
employer was justified in refusing to recall an employee because he had repeatedly called
its president a "Fascist" while the employee was distributing union literature at the
plant entrance.
16 N L R.B. v. The Babcock & Wilcox Company, 351 U S 105, 112-113 ; Republic Avia-
tion Corporation v N L R B , 324 U S 793 ; contra, N L R B v Rockwell Manufacturing
Company, 271 F. 2d 109 (CA. 3), which the Board did not follow in its later decision
in Walton Manufacturing Company, 126 NLRB 697. The Respondent's reliance on lan-
guage in N L R B v United Steelworkers of America, CIO, Nutone Inc , Intervenor, 357
U.S. 357, 363, is misplaced Unlike the present case, the Court there was concerned with
a valid no-solicitation rule which the company enforced against employees but itself en-
gaged in antiunion solicitation A majority of the Court there held that, in such circum-
stances , the Board should consider , among other things , whether the no- solicitation rule
truly diminished the ability of the union to communicate with the employees, in deter-
mining whether the company lawfully applied the valid no-solicitation rule Time- O-Matic,
Inc. v. NLR.B., 264 F 2d 96 , 100 (C.A. 7).
46 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
necessary to determine whether the Union had other reasonable alternatives for
communicating with employees.
As for the existence of the contractual grievance procedure, the Board has not made
compliance with it a condition for the exercise of employee rights to distribute
union literature on company property during nonworking hours. Moreover, the
grievance procedure in the Respondent's contract with the Union does not impose such
a requirement.17 In any event, assuming that it did, it could not justify the Re-
spondent's ban on employee distribution of all union literature on company property
in view of .the fact that the leaflets here in question served not only to publicize the
employees' grievances but also served as a medium of communication between the
Union and the employees it represents and as a facility for organizing the unorganized
fellow employees.18
Accordingly, I find that the Respondent's refusal to permit employees on their own
time to distribute union literature on its premises constituted an impediment to the
exercise of employee rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act and that the Respond-
ent thereby violated Section 8(a) (1) of the Act.
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 set forth in section 1, 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
thereof.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices, I
shall recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and from like or related conduct.
I shall also recommend that the Respondent notify the Union that it has rescinded
its action prohibiting employees from distributing union literature on their own time
on company property. I shall further recommend that the Respondent take certain
other affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act, as provided
below.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record in
the case, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Implement
Workers of America, UAW, AFL-CIO, and its Local # 1234, are labor organizations
within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
2. United Aircraft Corporation, Pratt and Whitney Aircraft Division, is an em-
ployer within the meaning of Section 2(2) of the Act.
3. By prohibiting employees from distributing on their own time on company prop-
erty literature issued by the above-named Unions, the Respondent has interfered
with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of their rights in violation
of Section 8 (a),(1) of the Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices within the mean-
ing of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
17 There may be a question here, which I need not decide, as to whether the grievance
procedure was applicable to many of the grievances mentioned in the leaflets Article V,
section 2, of the parties' contract provides for the resolution of differences "concerning
the interpretation, application or compliance with the provisions of this agreement "
is In its brief, the Respondent alludes to the absence of antiunion bias and, among other
things, to certain bulletin board privileges accorded the Union However, it is settled
law that the validity of a prohibition on employee distribution of union literature such
as that involved here does not depend upon the employer's motivation. Republic Aviation
dorporatson v. N L.R.B., 324 U.S. 793. As for the bulletin board privileges, they are pro-
vided for in the parties' contract and are limited to posting, with the Respondent's
approval, of notices of union meetings, elections, results of elections, office appointments,
and union social affairs . Manifestly, this privilege is not coextensive with the employees'
right to distribute union literature which the Board and courts have recognized.