Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 28, 2003

340 N.L.R.B. 1216 (N.L.R.B. 2003)

DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 1216
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. and United Food and Com-
mercial Workers International Union, AFL–
CIO, CLC. Cases 25–CA–27387–1 and 25–CA–
27389–1
November 28, 2003
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN BATTISTA AND MEMBERS
LIEBMAN AND WALSH
This case1 presents two issues: (1) whether the judge
correctly found that the Respondent violated Section
8(a)(1) of the Act by discriminatorily prohibiting union
organizers from handbilling at its Noblesville, Indiana
store, and by discriminatorily contacting the police and
causing them to warn the handbillers that they were tres-
passing; and (2) whether the judge correctly dismissed
the allegation that the Respondent violated Section
8(a)(1) by engaging in surveillance of union activity at
its Muncie, Indiana store.
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 rulings, findings,2 and conclusions of the judge
as modified herein and to adopt the recommended Order
as modified.3
1. For the reasons set forth below, we agree with the
judge’s conclusion that the Respondent discriminatorily
applied its solicitation/distribution policy at its Nobles-
ville, Indiana store by unlawfully prohibiting union or-
ganizers from handbilling while allowing other organiza-
tions to solicit, and by contacting the police and causing
them to warn the handbillers.
On August 4, 2000,4 the Respondent, in a memo noti-
fying its store managers of potential union activity, set

1 On December 14, 2001, Administrative Law Judge Jerry M. Her-
mele issued the attached decision. The Charging Party filed exceptions
and a supporting brief and an answering brief to the Respondent’s
cross-exceptions. The Respondent filed cross-exceptions and a sup-
porting brief, an answering brief to the Charging Party’s exceptions,
and reply briefs to the Charging Party’s and the General Counsel’s
answering briefs to the Respondent’s cross-exceptions. The General
Counsel filed an answering brief to the Respondent’s cross-exceptions.
2 The Respondent 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.
3 We shall modify the judge’s recommended Order in accordance
with our decision in Indian Hills Care Center, 321 NLRB 144 (1996).
Further, we shall substitute a new notice in accordance with our deci-
sion in Ishikawa Gasket America, Inc., 337 NLRB 175 (2001).
4 All subsequent dates are in 2000 unless otherwise indicated.
forth a solicitation/distribution policy that, inter alia,
prohibits solicitation and distribution activities inside the
Respondent’s stores. With regard to solicitation and dis-
tribution activities outside a store, the policy states: “In-
sure that the individuals are not blocking the entrances
and exits, and are at least 15 ft. away.”
Carrie Shrock, an assistant manager at the Noblesville
store, testified that she had “responsibilities” for dealing
with solicitation issues and that when someone wanted to
solicit on the Respondent’s store property, she would
“notify them that they would have to [be] outside the
building about 15 feet away from the door.” Shrock fur-
ther testified that she told a person who was soliciting
inside the building that he would have to leave, but, con-
sistent with policy, she explained that the solicitation had
to be 15 feet outside the building. Thus, according to
Shrock’s uncontradicted testimony, the Respondent not
only permits solicitation on its premises, but also actually
informs solicitors of its policy of permitting solicitation
at least 15 feet from the entrance.
On August 15, union organizers Alberta Jordan-Rigsby
and Jeffrey Kimbrough distributed union literature near
two entrances at the Respondent’s Noblesville store.5
There is no evidence that either organizer was blocking
an entrance or exit. An assistant manager asked the two
organizers to leave and, shortly thereafter, a second assis-
tant manager told them to leave, adding that the Respon-
dent did not support unions. Neither manager mentioned
that they could solicit as long as they stayed at least 15
feet outside entrances and exits. Subsequently, Assistant
Manager Jeff Staton called the police. When patrolman
Timothy Hendricks arrived at the store, Staton told
Hendricks that the two organizers did not have permis-
sion to handbill, and requested that they receive a warn-
ing for trespassing. Hendricks then warned the organiz-
ers that they were trespassing and asked them to leave.
The organizers left the store.
The record shows that the Respondent’s solicitation
policy allows solicitation activities on its property, out-
side its stores, at least 15 feet from entrances and exits.
The record further shows that the Respondent informs
prospective solicitors of this policy. Yet at the Nobles-
ville store, the Respondent did not inform union organiz-
ers Jordan-Rigsby and Kimbrough of its solicitation pol-
icy. Nor did it permit them to solicit at least 15 feet from
5 We agree with the judge that the distribution of the handbills, in-
cluding the handbill concerning women’s employment issues, was
concerted activity. Emporium Capwell Co. v. Western Addition Com-
munity Organization, 420 U.S. 50, 66 (1975).
340 NLRB No. 144
WAL-MART STORES 1217
the entrances and exits of the store.6 Instead, the Re-
spondent insisted that they leave the premises. The re-
cord, thus, establishes that the Respondent’s actions to-
wards Jordan-Rigsby and Kimbrough were inconsistent
not only with its written policy, but also with its practice
of explaining the policy to solicitors and giving them the
opportunity to comply with that policy.7
The Respondent’s failure to inform the union organiz-
ers at the Noblesville store of its solicitation/distribution
policy, and its failure to apply the policy to them, estab-
lish that the Respondent discriminatorily prohibited un-
ion agents from engaging in lawful handbilling of em-
ployees while allowing other persons or organizations to
engage in similar solicitation. Accordingly, we find that
the Respondent’s actions toward Jordan-Rigsby and
Kimbrough at the Noblesville store violated Section
8(a)(1) of the Act.8
2. We also agree with the judge that Muncie, Indiana
Support Manager Douglas Roof did not engage in unlaw-
ful surveillance when he sat on a bench outside the store
entrance for about 30 minutes, watching the organizers
distribute handbills. We emphasize that Roof acted in
response to a complaint from a customer.
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board adopts the rec-
ommended Order of the administrative law judge as
modified below and orders that the Respondent, Wal-
Mart Stores, Inc., Noblesville, Indiana, its officers,
agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set
forth in the Order as modified.
1. Substitute the following for paragraph 2.
“2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to
effectuate the policies of the Act.
“(a) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at
its store in Noblesville, Indiana, copies of the attached
notice marked ‘Appendix.’2 Copies of the notice, on
forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 25,
after being signed by the Respondent’s authorized repre-

6 In light of the Respondent’s failure to follow its policy or practice,
we find it unnecessary to determine where, in fact, the union organizers
were situated at the Noblesville store.
7 The Respondent’s actions toward the union organizers’ handbilling
at the Noblesville store stand in contrast to its actions toward union
handbilling activities at its Muncie, Indiana store. There, the Respon-
dent followed its policy. Support Manager Douglas Roof did not tell
the organizers to leave the property. Rather, Roof not only told them
about the 15-foot rule, but also came to an agreement with them about
exactly where they could stand.
8 Chairman Battista notes that the Respondent discriminated against
the Union by treating the Union differently than it treated all others
with regard to solicitation. Accordingly, he finds it unnecessary to
reach the issue of whether an employer violates the Act by allowing
solicitation by charitable organizations while restricting solicitation by
all others (including unions).
sentative, shall be posted by the Respondent and main-
tained for 60 consecutive days in conspicuous places
including all places where notices to employees are cus-
tomarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the
Respondent to ensure that the notices are not altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material. In the event
that, during the pendency of these proceedings, the Re-
spondent has gone out of business or closed the facility
involved in these proceedings, the Respondent shall du-
plicate 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 August 15, 2000.
“(b) 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.”
2. Substitute the attached notice for that of the admin-
istrative law judge.
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government

The National Labor Relations Board has found that we vio-
lated Federal labor law and has ordered us to post and obey
this notice.

FEDERAL LAW GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO

Form, join, or assist any union
Choose representatives to bargain with us on
your behalf
Act together with other employees for your bene-
fit and protection
Choose not to engage in any of these protected
activities.

WE WILL NOT discriminatorily prohibit union agents
from engaging in lawful handbilling of employees on our
premises while allowing other organizations to engage in
solicitation on our premises.
WE WILL NOT discriminatorily contact the police and
cause the police to warn union agents who are engaged in
lawful handbilling of employees on behalf of United
Food and Commercial Workers International Union,
AFL–CIO, CLC on our premises.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere
with, restrain, or coerce you in the exercise of the rights
set forth above.

WAL-MART STORES, INC.

DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 1218
Kim Sorg-Graves, Esq., for the General Counsel.
John T. Neighbours and Stuart Buttrick, Esqs. (Baker &
Daniels), of Indianapolis, Indiana, for the Respondent.
George Wiszynski, Esq., of Washington, D.C., for the Union.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
JERRY M. HERMELE, U.S. Administrative Law Judge. In
a June 29, 2001, complaint, the General Counsel alleges that
the Respondent, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (Wal-Mart), violated
Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act (the Act)
regarding handbilling by the United Food and Commercial
Workers International Union, AFL–CIO, CLC (the Union), at
two Wal-Mart stores in Indiana on August 15, 2000. The Re-
spondent denied these allegations in answers filed on July 12
and August 17, 2001.
This case was tried on August 30 and 31, 2001, in Indianapo-
lis, Indiana, with the General Counsel calling five witnesses
and the Respondent calling three witnesses. All parties, includ-
ing the Union, then filed briefs on October 25, 2001.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Wal-Mart, the major retailer in the United States, owns two
stores in Noblesville and Muncie, Indiana, both of which derive
annual gross revenue over $500,000, and purchase and receive
interstate goods exceeding $50,000 (GC Exhs. 1(e), (g), and
(h)).
The Company’s written policy regarding solicitation and dis-
tribution of literature at its stores is as follows:

Selling Areas:
Solicitation and/or distribution of literature
is not permitted at any time in selling areas during the hours
the store is open to the public.

Working Areas:
Distribution of literature is not permitted at any time in
working areas.

Non-Associates:
Solicitation and/or distribution of literature by non As-
sociates is prohibited at all times in any area of the store.

(GC Exh. 2.) But the Company allowed solicitation such as
people leaving written material on car windshields in the park-
ing lot (Tr. 345–46).
On August 4, 2000, the Company sent a memorandum to its
stores regarding “Potential Union Activity in August.”
Therein, the memorandum stated, “We have information that
the United Food & Commercial Workers Union may plan to
disrupt our business over the next few weeks.” In this connec-
tion, the Company wrote:

Solicitation/Distribution of Literature Policy (PD-38):
This policy should be reviewed in Pipeline (click on the link
above.) The basics of the policy are that we do not allow
anyone to solicit or distribute literature inside our facilities.
Should a member of management witness some type of solici-
tation they should follow the steps listed below.

Plan of action if solicitation takes place inside the building:

1. Approach the individual soliciting/distributing in-
side the facility.
2. Identify yourself as a member of Wal-Mart man-
agement.
3. Inform them that our policy does not allow solicita-
tion/distribution of literature within our building.
4. Ask them to refrain from soliciting/distributing lit-
erature.
5. If they refuse, a member of management should stay
with them and another should call the union hotline for
additional instructions.
6. Under no circumstances should anyone engage in
any confrontation.
7. Call the Union Hotline if you have any solicitation
distribution of literature (501–273-8300).

Picketing or Leafleting outside the facility:

Should anyone attempt to picket or leaflet outside the facility,
management should address it in the following way:

Plan of action for picketing or leafleting outside the facil-
ity:

1. Insure that the individuals are not blocking the en-
trances and exits, and are at least 15 ft. away.
2. If leafleting, insure that the individuals are person-
ally handing out the leaflets. Do not allow leaflets to be
placed on car windshields, etc.
3. Place additional trash barrels clearly marked
“TRASH” outside the entry doors.
4. Safety sweep the store frequently to insure no leaf-
lets get left in the store by customers, or dropped on the
floor.
5. Call the Union Hotline (501)273–8300, and be pre-
pared to fax a copy of the leaflet. [GC Exh. 3.]

Union organizer Alberta Jordan-Rigsby handbilled at about
50 Wal-Mart stores in 2000. She knew about the Company’s
new rule requiring that leafleting occur at least 15 feet away
from a store’s entrance (Tr. 145, 200–201). On August 15,
2000, she and Jeffrey Kimbrough, another union organizer who
had never handbilled at a Wal-Mart store before, arrived at the
Wal-Mart store in Noblesville, Indiana, at 2 p.m. They both
distributed two pieces of union literature to Wal-Mart employ-
ees wearing either company vests or name tags. One leaflet
read: “Get a Union and Get a Say” and the other leaflet dis-
cussed the lack of promotions of women employees at “Wally
World.” (R. Exh. 2.) The latter leaflet did not specifically men-
tion the benefits of the Union, but did state that the “UFCW is
distributing this information to women employed at Wal-Mart
to inform them about public interest and women’s legal groups
working against discrimination in employment.” Jordan-
Rigsby stood near one entrance and Kimbrough was at the
other entrance, a few hundred feet away. According to Jordan-
Rigsby, she was 10 to 15 or 12 to 15 feet away from the store
entrance (Tr. 146–149, 219, 265–267, 285). About 10 minutes
later, an assistant manager came outside and asked them to
leave. According to Jordan-Rigsby and Kimbrough, it was
WAL-MART STORES 1219
Jeffrey Staton, but Stanton denied it was him. Stanton testified
that he first saw the handbillers inside the store vestibule, lo-
cated just before a customer meets the store greeter, measuring
about 20 by 30 feet, and housing such things as pop machines
and video games. In either event, Jordan-Rigsby told this indi-
vidual that the lawyers from the Union and Wal-Mart had
agreed that handbilling could occur if the store entrances were
not blocked and customers were not interfered with. So, she
continued to handbill. Then, another manager, Patty, came
outside and told them to leave, adding that Wal-Mart did not
support unions. (Tr. 106–107, 120, 150–155, 186, 267–269.).
Usually, according to assistant manager Carrie Shrock, she
would tell solicitors to stand about 15 feet away from the door
(Tr. 178).
Staton was told that the handbillers were in the vestibule
handing out leaflets, whereupon he called the Noblesville po-
lice department after being unable to contact the Wal-Mart
union telephone hotline. Patrolman Timothy Hendricks then
arrived. He saw Jordan-Rigsby and Kimbrough handbilling
outside, 10 feet from the store entrance. They told Hendricks
that they had permission to be there but Hendricks told them to
step into the store’s vestibule so that he could talk with the
manager. Jeff Staton and Jeff Stadick, two assistant managers,
met them in the vestibule along with other members of man-
agement. According to Staton, and Assistant Manager Carrie
Shrock, the handbillers were getting loud. Either Staton and/or
Stadick then told Hendricks that they did not have permission
to handbill and he requested that they receive a warning for
trespassing. Hendricks so warned them, told them to leave, and
Jordan-Rigsby and Kimbrough obeyed (Tr. 114, 118, 121–122,
126, 130, 136, 156–160, 185, 189, 244–248, 259, 270–273).
Jordan-Rigsby and Kimbrough next visited the Wal-Mart
store in Muncie, arriving at 4:30 p.m. Again, they handbilled 5
to 15 feet from the store’s entrance. Support Manager Douglas
Roof learned of their presence and he walked outside, telling
them to remain 15 feet from the store entrance. Jordan-Rigsby
told Roof of an agreement between the Company and the Union
giving them permission to handbill. Roof said the handbillers
had to be at least 15 feet away. So, Roof, Jordan-Rigsby, and
Kimbrough eventually agreed on a point 15 feet from the en-
trance, whereupon Roof returned into the store again (Tr. 30–
31, 62–64, 75, 83–84, 97, 161–166, 220–221, 274–277, 317).
Shortly thereafter, after following the Company’s August 4,
2000, memorandum, Roof instructed an employee to bring two
trash cans outside, notwithstanding the existence of two trash
cans already near the entrance. A sign marked “Trash” was
taped to each can, brought outside, and they were placed be-
tween the handbillers and the store entrance. According to
Roof, he did not want customers to think that these cans were
sales items. Further, he wanted the store’s parking lot to re-
main free of any discarded union leaflets. Moreover, trash cans
were previously put out near vendors selling food outside the
store. (Tr. 67, 76, 79, 85, 166–167, 277–278, 317–320.)
Shortly thereafter, Roof called the Company’s “union hot
line.” Then, a customer complained to Roof about being both-
ered by the handbillers. So, Roof returned outside and smoked
a cigarette at a bench near the entrance, located about 25 feet
from the handbillers, from where he and two other Wal-Mart
workers watched the handbillers. Roof usually smoked either
there or at the side of the building. One of those workers had a
walk-talkie, which all management personnel carried. Accord-
ing to Roof, he wanted to ensure that the handbillers stayed 15
feet away and did not bother any more customers. After about
five or 10 minutes he returned to the store. According to Jor-
dan-Rigsby and Kimbrough, however, Roof and the person
who brought out the garbage cans and someone else with a
“support manager” badge remained by the bench for 30 to 40
minutes. During this time, they continued to handbill, but with
less success because some people refused to take any and three
people looked at Roof after taking the handbills and then threw
them away, whereupon Roof laughed. After Roof returned to
the inside of the store, the handbillers left (Tr. 52–53, 65, 168–
170, 225–227, 229, 234, 279–281, 291, 320–331, 343, 352).
Analysis
The General Counsel does not allege that Wal-Mart’s August
2000 rule requiring solicitators to remain at least 15 feet away
from a store’s entrance doors violated the Act (GC Exhs. 3–4).
Rather it is alleged that management violated Section 8(a)(1) of
the Act in enforcing this rule at the Noblesville and Muncie
stores on August 15, 2000.
First, regarding Noblesville, the General Counsel alleges that
management failed to allow the two union handbillers to solicit
within 15 feet of the store entrance. Actually, one of the union
handbillers, Alberta Jordan-Rigsby, started leafleting at 2 p.m.
on August 15, somewhere between 10 and 15 feet from the
entrance, despite being fully aware of the minimum 15-foot
rule in a possible attempt to provoke an incident. Nevertheless,
there is no evidence that management knew she was less than
15 feet away because one management official, either Jeffrey
Staton or someone else, simply came outside and asked her to
leave, without mention of the 15-foot requirement. This re-
quest clearly violated the Company’s own August 4 rule which
required management to “[i]nsure that the individuals are not
blocking the entrances and exits, and are at least 15 ft. away,”
and there is no evidence that either handbiller was blocking an
entrance or exit. Moreover, according to Assistant Manager
Carrie Shrock, she would normally inform solicitators of the
15-foot requirement. Further, another assistant manager, Patty,
also came outside and told the handbillers to leave, adding that
Wal-Mart did not support unions. Thus, it is concluded that
Wal-Mart violated its own recently adopted solicitation rule on
August 15 when presented with an instance of union solicita-
tion. Finally, the Presiding Judge rejects that Respondent’s
defense that the solicitation that day was unprotected activity
because one of the two leaflets discussed women’s employment
issues, which was not union activity but merely that of “indi-
vidual concern.” Rather, that leaflet specifically mentioned the
lack of job promotions among women at Wal-Mart and stated
that the “UFCW is distributing this information.” Thus, the
Respondent is clearly wrong in contending that the leaflet ad-
dressed unconcerted activity. See NLRB v. City Disposal Sys-
tems, 465 U.S. 822 (1984). Moreover, it is clear that the other
leaflet discussed union activity and was distributed along with
the other leaflet. Also, unlike any of the cases cited by the
Respondent regarding racial slurs or obscene language, it can-
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 1220
not be said that this handbill was defamatory or malicious, thus
removing it from the protection of Section 7 of the Act. There-
fore, it is concluded that the Respondent’s request that the
handbillers leave, rather than that they comply with the 15-foot
rule, violated Section 8(a)(1).
Furthermore, the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) again
when Assistant Manager Staton asked a police officer to warn
them that they were trespassing. After receiving the two above-
discussed visits outside then store, the two handbillers contin-
ued with their protected activity, and sometime thereafter, Sta-
ton called the police. Staton claimed that he did so on being
informed that the handbillers had entered the store. But there is
no evidence that either Jordan-Rigsby or Kimbrough did so.
Instead, police officer Hendricks credibly testified that he saw
them 10 feet away from the entrance, whereupon he told them
to step inside the store vestibule to discuss things with man-
agement. Although some voices were raised in the ensuing
discussion, Staton asked the officer to warn the handbillers that
they were trespassing, again rather than simply informing eve-
ryone of the existing 15-foot rule. So, the General Counsel is
correct that this additional misconduct likewise violated the
Act. Accordingly, the Respondent will be ordered to cease and
desist these two instances of illegal conduct, and will be re-
quired to post an appropriate remedial notice.
At the Muncie store, which the two handbillers visited at 4
p.m. that day, Manager Douglas Roof handled the situation
somewhat better. Roof walked outside and informed both
handbillers of the 15-foot rule, whereupon everyone marked off
the 15 feet and the handbillers adhered to the rule, despite the
appearance of additional trash cans placed between the hand-
billers and the entrance. But the General Counsel alleges that
the Respondent illegally surveilled the handbilling thereafter.
But, Roof credibly testified that he received a complaint from a
customer about the handbilling, causing him to return outside,
with at least one other management official, to ensure that the
handbillers were complying with the Company’s requirements.
According to Roof, he watched for about 10 minutes, while
Jordan-Rigsby and Kimbrough estimated the duration at about
30 minutes. So, the issue is whether the observation of the
handbilling by one-to-three management officials for up to 30
minutes, during which more leaflets ended up in the trash cans,
constituted illegal surveillance.
It is well settled that “management officials may observe
public union activity without violating the Act so long as those
officials do not ‘do something out of the ordinary!’ Eddyleon
Chocolate Co., 301 NLRB 887, 888 (1991). Here, Roof’s 30-
minute observation, along with one or two other supervisors,
exceeded Roof’s usual cigarette break but he was concerned
about the customer’s complaint and the parking lot was part of
his job jurisdiction. Further, all of the cases cited by the Gen-
eral Counsel and the Union involve either surveillance by man-
agement for substantial periods of time on several occasions, or
exacerbating factors by those officials in addition to mere ob-
servation. Finally, given the fact that the General Counsel has
not alleged a violation of the Act regarding the Respondent’s
new August 2000 policy regarding the placing of additional
trash cans outside stores being leafleted by union organizers, it
would be inapposite to conclude that Roof’s incidental observa-
tion of some of the August 15, 2000 leaflets winding up in
those trash cans constituted illegal surveillance, or polling, or
which employees favored the Union. Therefore, it is concluded
that the Respondent did not illegally surveill the union handbill-
ing at the Muncie store. See ITT Automotive Electrical Prod-
ucts, 231 NLRB 878 fn. 1 (1977). Accordingly, this complaint
allegation will be dismissed.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Respondent, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., is an employer
engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6),
and (7) of the Act.
2. The Union, United Food and Commercial Workers Inter-
national Union, AFL–CIO, CLC, is a labor organization within
the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. The Respondent did not violate Section 8(a)(1) of the Act,
as alleged in paragraphs 5(a) and 6 of the General Counsel’s
complaint by surveilling union activity on August 15, 2000.
4. The Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act on
August 15, 2000, as alleged in paragraphs 5(b) and 6 of the
complaint, by discriminatorily prohibiting union agents from
engaging in lawful handbilling of employees on its premises
while allowing other organizations to engage in solicitation on
its premises at Noblesville, Indiana.
5. The Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act on
August 15, 2000, as alleged in paragraphs 5(c) and 6 of the
complaint, by discriminatorily contacting the police and caus-
ing the police to warn the union agents because they were en-
gaged in lawful handbilling of the employees on behalf of the
Union at the facility in Noblesville, Indiana.
6. The unfair labor practices of the Respondent, described in
paragraphs 4 and 5, above, affect commerce within the meaning
of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on the
entire record, I issue the following recommended1
ORDER
The Respondent, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Noblesville, Indi-
ana, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Discriminatorily prohibiting union agents from engaging
in lawful handbilling of employees on its premises while allow-
ing other organizations to engage in solicitation on its premises.
(b) Discriminatorily contacting the police and causing the
police to warn union agents who are engaged in lawful hand-
billing of employees on behalf of the Union on its premises.
(c) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining,
or coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed
them by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Do the following.
(a) Post at its facility in Noblesville, Indiana, copies of the
attached notice marked “Appendix.”2 Copies of the notice on

1 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the Board’s
Rules and Regulations, the findings, conclusions, and recommended
Order shall, as provided in Sec. 102.48 of the Rules, be adopted by the
Board and all objections to them shall be deemed waived for all pur-
poses.
WAL-MART STORES 1221
forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 25, after
being signed by the Respondent’s authorized representative,
shall be posted by the Respondent and maintained for 60 con-
secutive 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 notices are
not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. In the

2 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.”
event that, during the pendency of these proceedings, the Re-
spondent has gone out of business, been purchased or closed
the facility involved in these proceedings, the Respondent shall
duplicate the mail, at its own expense, a copy of the notice to
all current and former employees employed by Respondent
since August 15, 2000.
(b) File with the Regional Director a sworn certification of a
responsible official on a form provided by the Region attesting
to the steps that the Respondent has taken to comply.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that paragraph 5(a) of the
General Counsel’s complaint is dismissed.