William L. Bonnell Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 24, 1967

164 N.L.R.B. 110 (N.L.R.B. 1967)

110 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
William L . Bonnell Co., Inc. and
International Union of District 50, United
Mine Workers of America . Cases 10-CA-6639,
10-CA-6639-2, and 3.
April 24,1967
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS FANNING
AND BROWN
On January 26, 1967, Trial Examiner Paul E. Weil
issued his Decision 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 Trial Examiner's Decision. Thereafter,
the Respondent filed exceptions to the Decision and
a supporting brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this case to a three-
member panel.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial
Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no
prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are
hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial
Examiner's Decision, the exceptions and brief, and
i In adopting the Trial Examiner's Decision, we do not rely
upon certain of his findings which appear to be contrary to
evidence in the record However, in our view, the weight of the
evidence in the record as a whole clearly supports the Trial
Examiner's findings that by promulgating and enforcing the no-
solicitation rule, the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) and also
Section 8(a)(3) of the Act The Trial Examiner's findings which we
find in error are as follows
(a) "Employee Hannah testified credibly that he purchased
tickets to a baseball pool from Press Operator Brown in the
presence of Foreman Helms."
In fact, Hannah testified that he purchased the tickets while
Foreman Fleming was about 7 feet away
(b) "Brown testified that it was about seven feet
In fact, Brown did not testify
(c) "[George Hunter, Sr] testified that he sold barbecue
tickets on company time among others to employee Robertson
who testified that he bought the barbecue tickets and delivered
barbecue both to himself and to his foreman. Hunter, Sr , also
testified that 160 barbecue plates were sold on that occassion "
In fact, George Hunter, Sr., did testify that he sold barbecue
tickets on company time in 1965 rather than in 1966 as implied by
the Trial Examiner Hunter, Senior, did not state that he sold a
barbecue ticket to Robertson Robertson testified that in 1966 he
bought a barbecue ticket from an employee named R R Hunter
George Hunter, Sr 's testimony was simply to the effect that, in
1966, he helped prepare more than 160 barbecue plates to be
delivered to the plant gate
(d) "Dischargee Wyche testified that he never solicited on
company time, as did dischargee Hannah" and "In addition, it
appears that Wyche, Young, and Hannah did not solicit on
company time That Respondent may have thought that they did,
at least in the case of Wyche, is no defense in the absence of
evidence that Respondent's belief was well based."
In fact, all five of the discnmmatees solicited for the Union on
company time and their activities became known to management.
the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the
findings,' conclusions,2 and recommendations of the
Trial Examiner.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order the
Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner and
hereby orders that the Respondent, William L.
Bonnell Co., Inc., Atlanta, Georgia, its officers,
agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action
set forth in the Trial Examiner's Recommended
Order.
2 Contrary to Respondent's contention, we find that the
testimony of employees Robertson, Gable, Hannah, Wyche,
Young, Newman, Hunter, Senior, and Hunter, Junior, amply
established that nonunion solicitation on the part of rank-and-file
employees on working time was a frequert occurrence in
Respondent's plant, and that Respondent was aware of these
activities
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
PAUL E. WEIL, Trial Examiner: Upon charges filed
August 3 and 10,' the Regional Director for Region 10
(Atlanta, Georgia), on behalf of the General Counsel of the
National Labor Relations Board, issued his consolidated
complaint on September 14, 1966, against Respondent
William L. Bonnell Co., Inc., alleging that Respondent
violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, by interrogating employees,
promulgating an invalid no-solicitation rule, and
discharging five employees for breech thereof.
Respondent's duly filed answer denied all alleged unfair
labor practices.
Pursuant to due notice a hearing was held before me at
Newnan, Georgia, on November 2 and 3. All parties
appeared at the hearing and were given full opportunity to
examine and cross-examine witnesses, to introduce
relevant evidence, to argue orally at the close of the
hearing and to file briefs. The parties waived oral
argument after the hearing. The General Counsel and the
Respondent filed briefs with me which have been duly
considered.'
Upon the entire record in the case and from my
observation of the witnesses I make the following:
i All dates herein are in the year 1966 unless otherwise
specified
2 After the hearing, pursuant to agreement of the parties at the
hearing, Respondent filed an affidavit of Supervisor Vernon
Mentzer with the request that the same be incorporated in the
record as Resp Exh 5 The agreement provided that in the event
that either the Charging Party or the General Counsel was
dissatisfied with the affidavit as such they could take a deposition
from Mentzer and said deposition was to be filed with me on or
before the date on which the briefs were to be received, in which
case the deposition would be received as the testimony of Mentzer-
and the affidavit would not be received No deposition has been
received nor has any request therefore come to my attention
Accordingly, I receive the affidavit of Mentzer as Resp Exh 5
164 NLRB No. 17
WILLIAM L. BONNELL CO. 111
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
Respondent, a Georgia corporation, manufactures and
sells aluminum extrusions at Newnan, Georgia, from
which it annually ships products valued in excess of
$50,000 directly to customers located outside the State of
Georgia. Upon the foregoing facts the Respondent
concedes and I find that it is engaged in commerce within
the meaning of the Act.
H. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Respondent concedes and I find that the Charging Party
is a labor organization within the meaning of the Act.
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Introduction
employees as alleged, are whether the no-solicitation rule
is a valid exercise of Respondent's prerogative to regulate
the working hours of its employees or whether the
presumption of such validity is rebutted by the fact that its
adoption was motivated by antiunion considerations, in
which case the rule is invalid, or the rule was
discriminatorily enforced in which case the rule was
invalid.
The Respondent apparently contends that it has for a
period of years had a broad rule prohibiting any
solicitation in the plant that interfered with the work.
There is no evidence that such a rule was ever posted in
the plant or appeared in written form.3 Industrial
Relations Man Petty testified that from time to time
notices were posted in the plant with respect to
solicitations. He could recall only four such notices, the
last of which is that of August 3, set forth above. He
identified a notice to all employees dated May 13, 1963,
which stated:
In July and August the Charging Party was engaged in
an attempt to organize the employees of Respondent
through the usual channels including the use of employee
proponents who solicited their fellow employees both in
the plant and out of it to sign union cards. The last prior
attempt to organize Respondent's employees had taken
place in the fall of 1964. Respondent's reaction to the
organizational campaign included "man to man"
discussions by Respondent's supervisors with many
employees, during the course of which various supervisors
gave as their opinion that the employees did not need a
labor organization nor a "third party" between the
employees and management. In addition, it is alleged, two
of the supervisors, Henry Orr and Hugh Don Smith,
interrogated employees concerning their own and other
employees' union activities.
On August 2, 1966, Kenneth L. Gable, Billy H.
Robertson, and Ernest L. Hannah were discharged,
allegedly for violation of a company no-solicitation rule
which was thereafter posted on August 3, 1966. The
posting took the form of a letter which stated as follows:
To all Employees: Yesterday it became necessary for
us to enforce our rule against carrying on union
organizing activities in the plant during working
hours. For your information we are reposting this rule:
No person will be allowed to carry on union organizing
activities in the plant during his working hours.
Anybody who does so and thereby interferes with his
own work or the work of others will be discharged.
Donald A. Wagner, Vice President-Operations
On August 8, Thomas C. Wyche and John Robert Young,
Jr., were discharged, allegedly for violation of the same
company rule.
The five discharges set forth above and the
interrogations by Orr and Smith are alleged as unfair labor
practices.
B. The Issues
The issues raised by the pleadings, in addition to the
factual issues whether Smith and Orr in fact interrogated
It is the Company's desire to cooperate with and
help with church and civic fund raising endeavors. It
has been -the practice to allow churches and civic
clubs to sell chicken lunches, barbecue plates, etc. in
the plant. This we want to continue, but we find it
necessary to ask for compliance with the following
regulations:
1. Anyone desiring to sell lunches in the plant
must get written permission from the Personnel
Department. This will serve as a gate pass into
the plant.
2. An employee must accompany the party or
parties selling the lunches.
3. Notices will be placed on the plant bulletin
board several days in advance of the selling date,
giving those individuals who desire lunches a
chance to so indicate.
4. No "person to person" solicitation will be
allowed during working time. This is not being
allowed because of the confusion and
distractions this causes in the work area.
5. It will be permissible to carry lunches to the
canteen areas during the feeding periods.
It is felt that the above regulations will work out to
the satisfaction of all.
Thereafter Petty identified a notice posted April 20,
1964, which stated:
Effective immediately, employees will not be
allowed or permitted to sell "lunches" for churches or
civic clubs. We have allowed this to be done during
the past year, but have found it impractical to
continue doing.so.
The policy posted May 13, 1963, has not been
complied with and too much confusion and distraction
in the plant has resulted.
3 There is some evidence from two of the supervisors that they
orally informed their employees of the existence of a rule but
there is no evidence as to what they said.
112 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
We regret that we must do this, but feel that it is
necessary.
Ray Petty
Finally Petty identified a notice posted October 16,
1964, on the Company's letterhead which stated "All
solicitations during working time which interfere with the
work of any employee are prohibited. No person will be
allowed to carry on union organizing activities in the plant
during his working hours. Anybody who does so and
thereby interferes with his own work or the work of others
will be discharged."
It is clear from the record that the October 1964 notice
was posted at a time when the Union was attempting to
organize the employees. It remained posted for a matter of
a few weeks and was removed from the bulletin board. No
notice was posted thereafter until the August 3 notice was
posted. Petty testified that he felt other notices had been
posted but his testimony is unsupported in the record and
flatly contradicted by a number of witnesses who testified
that between the October 1964, and the August 3, notice
no no-solicitation rule of any kind was posted in the plant.
Industrial Relations Man Petty also testified that the
Employer posts notices when there is a need and that it
seldom takes the notices down until there is need to post
another notice. Notices are usually replaced in 1 to 4
weeks when Respondent puts up a new notice and takes
the old one down.
It appears that no employee has ever been discharged
for soliciting in the plant other than solicitation on behalf
of the Union. It appears also that solicitations in the plant
are extremely common. There is evidence of solicitation
by supervisors of the employees on behalf of various
"public service" enterprises such as the Blood Bank,
United Fund, Red Cross, and sale of United States savings
bonds. In addition, it is clear that supervisors as well as
employees solicited in the plant on behalf of such
organizations as a community club, a recreation center,
and various churches and the like as well as a masonic
lodge, flowers for the families of two company officials
who were killed in a plane crash, for an employee's son
who was injured and hospitalized, for a girl, not otherwise
identified, who was about to have heart surgery, donations
for the unemployed and to a standing flower fund and
solicitations for betting pools on the world series baseball
games and the raffle of various items such as shotguns,
watches, toasters, hams, etc.
In addition, it appears that the community has a custom
of preparing and selling chicken and barbecue dinners,
which are sold at the plant by means of a prior ticket sale
and delivered at lunchtime to the employees.
Respondent contends that the evidence shows that
solicitations were "only carried on during nonworking time
except in a few instances and in those instances it was not
shown that solicitations were carried on by rank-and-file
employees during working time which interfered with the
work." Respondent concedes that it used its supervisors
for the purpose of soliciting for the United Fund, Red
Cross, Blood Bank, and savings bond sales and other
appeals and draws a distinction between allowing rank-
and-file employees to solicit at will, thereby neglecting
their work or interfering with the work of others and
4 N.L.R.B. v. United Steelworkers of America, CIO (Nutone
Inc.); N.L.R.B. v. Avondale Mills, 357 U.S. 357.
5 Helms was not called to testify. Employee Hannah testified
credibly that he purchased tickets to a baseball pool from Press
having an organized solicitation for charitable and worthy
causes sponsored by the management. Respondent relies
on James Hotel Company, a Corp., d/b/a Skirvin Hotel, 142
NLRB 761, and the Supreme Court decision in the Nutone
case.4
Respondent contends, with regard to employee
solicitation of employees, that employees did not solicit
during working time or at any rate such solicitation did not
come to the attention of supervision.
It is clear from the record that Respondent provides for
a lunchtime of 15 minutes for each of its employees and
that employees are permitted to take breaks during the
day when they are caught up with their work. There is no
evidence on the record as to what constitutes being caught
up. Respondent's supervisors testified generally that they
were aware of various solicitations and took part in some
of them but that they at no time solicited except during
lunch and break time. On the other hand employees
testified that they either solicited or were solicited by
other employees during working times; i.e., they stopped
work in order to solicit or they solicited employees who
were engaged in work at the time. Employee Gable
testified in fact that he himself sold raffle tickets during
working time to employees who were working and that
Foreman Helms drew the winning ticket for the raffle. He
testified that he solicited in Helm's presence during
working time.5 Hannah also purchased chances on a
toaster from employee Bobby Wilson. Employee Hunter,
Junior, testified that he purchased barbecue tickets during
working time from Foreman Hains and a chance on a car
from an employee known as Preacher Ray. His father, an
employee, testified that he sold barbecue tickets on
company time among others to employee Robertson who
testified that he bought the barbecue tickets and delivered
barbecues both to himself and to his foreman. Hunter,
Senior, also testified that 160 barbecue plates were sold on
that occasion.
It is clear and I find that employees were permitted to
solicit on working time for any purpose other than the
Union. It is obvious that foremen not only knew of the
practice but themselves indulged in it by buying and
selling tickets and chances and by collecting for various
more or less charitable enterprises. In addition, I find on
the evidence before me that the blanket assertions by the
various supervisors called to testify that all solicitations
took place on employees' lunch or break times are patently
incorrect. Aside from the credible and occasionally
undenied testimony of various employees concerning
solicitations during worktime, it is obvious that with the
Respondent's custom of permitting employees to take a
break, whatever time they are "caught up" with their
work, it would be impossible to state with anything like
certitude that both the solicitor and the employee being
solicited were on break at any given time. I infer from the
record that for purposes of enforcement of the rule, if rule
there be, the supervisors were clearly willing to believe
that anyone who was soliciting was on break, if his
solicitation did not involve the Union, but that any
solicitation which involved the Union must have been
accomplished during worktime. An exemplar of this is to
be found with regard to the discharge of employee Young.
Young testified that he solicited an employee named
Coalson on his break time. Foreman Smith testified that
Operator Brown in the presence of Foreman Helms and that the
drawing was held a short distance from Helms. Brown testified
that it was about 7 feet. It may have been up to 12 feet from the
foreman's desk.
WILLIAM L. BONNELL CO. 113
Coalson reported to him that he was solicited by Young
but from his testimony it is clear that Coalson said nothing
about being solicited during working time. Smith further
testified that he reported what Coalson had told him to
Industrial Relations Man Petty and Petty testified that the
Coalson solicitation was the violation that "clinched it on"
Young and that he discharged Young for soliciting on
company time. Coalson was not called to testify.
Dischargee Wyche testified that he never solicited on
company time, as did dischargee Hannah. Petty testified
that Hannah was discharged because it was reported to
him that Hannah had solicited three named employees,
Warner, Boswell, and Houston. Houston testified that he
was solicited by Hannah in the company canteen, where
he had gone for a coke. Boswell testified that after being
told by Gable that he could get a card from Hannah and
reporting this to his foreman, Massey, Massey said,
"Could we get a card. If you see Hannah, see if you can get
a card." Boswell went to Hannah and asked him for a card
and Hannah said that he could not give him a card because
"the general foreman was pretty hot on him and he
couldn't get up a card, he wanted to discuss it." Boswell
reported this back to Foreman Massey.
Warner, the janitor, testified that Hannah was talking
with another man in the men's room and Warner, who had
put some towels in the room, was standing there when
Hannah turned to him and said, "If the Union was to come
in, would you join it?" Warner answered that he did not
know anything about it and Hannah left the restroom.
When Warner left the restroom, Foreman Duncan came to
him and asked what Hannah said about the Union. Duncan
was not called to testify and Warner could not explain how
Duncan knew that Hannah had said anything about the
Union. It is clear by the testimony adduced by the
Employer, that in all three of the alleged solicitations
which lead to the discharge of Hannah, he was on his
breaktime.6 Additionally the persons solicited by Hannah
to the Company's knowledge were themselves on
breaktime with the exception of Warner and it is clear that
such solicitation did not interfere with Warner's work or
cause him to neglect his work, which the Employer
appears to contend is a prerequisite to the application of
the rule, at least insofar as solicitations for matters other
than the Union are concerned.
It is clear and I find, that if there was a broad no-
solicitation rule, i.e., broader than the limitation of
§olicitation to union talk, it was discriminatorily enforced.
Employee Boswell, who was instructed by his supervisor
to solicit Hannah for a union card, is still an employee and
there is no evidence that he was in any way punished for
his actions which were clearly on company time.
C. Discussion
Respondent contends basically that its no-solicitation
rule is not rendered invalid by reason of the fact that it had
in the past made exceptions to the rule for charitable
solicitations and that there is no evidence that the rule had
the effect of closing off the Union's channel of
communication. This defense is based on the decision of
the Supreme Court in the Nutone case, supra.
The cases on which Respondent relies, Nutone, James
Hotel Company, and Crawford Manufacturing Company,7
all involve the exercise of an otherwise valid no-solicitation
rule. However , as the Board stated in Walton
Manufacturing Company, 126 NLRB 697, enfd . 289 F.2d
177 (C.A. 5), "no-solicitation or no-distribution rules which
prohibit union solicitation or distribution of union
literature by employees during working time are
presumptively valid as to their promulgation in the
absence of evidence that the rule was adopted for a
discriminatory purpose [citing Republic Aviation
Corporation v. N.L.R.B., 324 U.S. 793, 803] and are
presumptively valid as to their enforcement in the absence
of evidence that the rule was unfairly applied [citing the
Nutone case , supra]." The General Counsel here contends
both that the rule was adopted for a discriminatory
purpose and that it was unfairly applied.
I believe the General Counsel 's position is well taken.
While Respondent's witnesses testified and Respondent
argues that Respondent has a broad gauge no-solicitation
rule and has had such rule for a considerable length of
time, there is no evidence that it was ever promulgated to
the employees except in the form of the four notices, set
forth above.
The first two of these notices dealt solely with , first, the
conditions under which solicitation for the sale of
"dinners" could be undertaken at the plant and; second,
the denial of future solicitation of such dinners during
working time. It is clear that the two rules dealt solely with
this single form of solicitation and the notices reveal that
Respondent 's concern with it took place during the year
1963 and early 1964. However , since 1965, there appears to
have been no impediment to the resumption of
solicitations for this purpose which took place.
The third and fourth notices produced by Respondent
both prohibit only solicitation in support of a union
organization . Each was promulgated and posted at a time
when the Employer became aware that a union was
soliciting and both were removed from the bulletin boards
and not replaced when the union actiyity, ceased.
Respondent 's Industrial Relations Man Petty testified
that Respondent has a turnover in excess of 400 persons
annually and presently has an employee complement of
approximately 1,325. Therefore, in the period of time
between the removal of the October 1964 notice, before
the end of 1964, and the posting of the 1966 , notice on
August 3, it would appear that as many as half of the
employees in the plant had never been advised of the
existence of a no-solicitation rule.8
When Respondent became aware that the union
organization was proceeding rapidly , it immediately
posted the August 3, version of the rule ; "This precipitous
promulgation and the fact that the rule did not apply to all
forms of solicitation and distribution, clearly indicates that
Respondent's purpose in adopting this rule was not to
prevent disruptions of production and discipline . . ." and
in fact indicates that it was adopted for the discriminatory
purpose of impeding the union organization .9 In addition,
it is clear that the discharge of Hannah under the pretext
that he had breached the rule although Respondent clearly
8 Another employee, Adams, testified that he was solicited
during working time but on cross-examination it appeared clear
that he considered all time working time except for the 15-minute
lunch break and that he, himself, never left his machine and took
no breaks. He appeared to be unaware of the fact that anybody
was permitted to take a break at any time There is no evidence
that the Employer knew of Adams' solicitation at the time Hannah
was discharged
t 161 NLRB 989.
8 Dischargee Hannah testified credibly that he was hired in
April, and he never saw or heard of a no-solicitation rule until the
day of his discharge.
9 Ward Manufactureng, Inc, 152 NLRB 1270
114 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
had no reason to believe that he had done so and the
attempt by Foreman Massey to trap Hannah and Gable
into a breach of the theretofore unannounced rule as well
as the discharge of Young in the absence of any evidence
that he had solicited on company time, all buttress the
conclusion that the sole purpose in the adoption of the rule
was "to stifle the union's organizing campaign." 10
The record establishes that in the enforcement of the
rule Respondent clearly acted in a discriminatory manner.
In addition to the examples set forth in the last preceding
paragraph, the solicitation of Hannah by Boswell earned
Boswell nothing but thanks from Respondent. Further, it
is clear that many other forms of solicitation were chronic
in the Company's plant and although they were overt and
necessarily had come to the attention of supervision (some
of whom were involved in the solicitation either as
purchasers or sellers of chances, betting pool tickets,
lunches, etc.), no attempt was made to investigate or
punish anyone for it, no one was ever discharged for such
solicitation, nor so far as the record reveals, warned to
desist therefrom except by the memorandum relating to
the sale of dinners which was posted in 1963. On the
record, as a whole, I find that the rule was not only
promulgated in response to union activity but was
discriminatorily enforced, in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of
the Act. Inasmuch as the no-solicitation rule is found to be
invalid, it follows that the discharges pursuant to the
invalid rule are unlawful. Accordingly, I find that
Respondent discharged Kenneth L. Gable, Billy
H. Robertson, Ernest L. Hannah, Thomas C. Wyche, and
John Robert Young, Jr., because of their activities on
behalf of the Charging Party and in order to discourage
union activities and membership among their employees,
all in violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act."
D. The 8(a)(1) Interrogation
The record contains considerable evidence of violative
interrogation by Respondent. It appears from the
testimony of Industrial Relations Man Petty that while
investigating the alleged breaches of the no-solicitation
rule he inquired whether the employees he was talking to
had signed union cards and who had talked to them about
it. Not only was employee Boswell interrogated by his
supervisor but he was asked to report back to his
supervisor any union activities that he saw or about which
he learned. The fact that Boswell was seriously working
against the union organization renders it no less violative
for the Employer to interrogate him about the union
activities of other employees than if he were, himself, a
union supporter. The General Counsel alleged only two
instances of interrogation as violations, one by Die-Repair
Foreman Orr and the other by General Foreman Hugh Don
Smith, both of employee Young. Orr admitted that he,
individually, talked to all the employees under his
supervision, including Young, advising them against
joining the Union, but denied asking Young what he
thought about the Union or whether he thought the
employees needed one. Young's testimony was delivered
10 The William H Block Company, 150 NLRB 341.
11 In addition, it appears that Wyche, Young, and Hannah did
not solicit on company time That Respondent may have thought
that they did, at least in the case of Wyche, is no defense in the
absence of evidence that Respondent's belief was well based
Thus, even were the no-solicitation rule valid, as to these three
employees, the enforcement of it is pretextuous and violative
under Section 8(a)(3) of the Act
in a straightforward and credible way. Orr, on the other
hand, was an unimpressive witness. In addition to
contradicting his direct testimony during cross-
examination, he appeared to be evasive and forgetful. I
credit Young's account.
On the afternoon of the same day on which Young was
interrogated by Foreman Orr, he was called to the office of
Foreman Smith, where Smith asked him how he felt about
the Union and asked him to report back if anyone asked
him to sign a union card. Smith denied that any such
conversation took place. I found Smith to be incredible.
Although he denied ever mentioning the Union to any
employee except Young, it is clear from the record that he
must have at least mentioned union during his
"investigation" that led to the discharge of Young and
included talking to employees Bonner, Brady Jones,
Coalson, and others. 12 I credit Young's account of the
interview with Smith and I find that both the interrogation
by Smith and the interrogation by Orr, unaccompanied as
they were by any of the "safeguards" spelled out by the
Board in its Blue Flash doctrine13 and refined in the
Board's Decision in Johnnie's Poultry,14 tended to
interfere with, coerce, and restrain employees and violated
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON
COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent set forth in section III,
above, occurring in connection with the Respondent's
operations described in section I, above, have a close,
intimate, and substantial relationship to trade, traffic, and
commerce among the several States and tend to lead to
labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and
the free flow of commerce.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Respondent is engaged in commerce and the
Union is a labor organization within the meaning of the
Act.
2. By promulgating and enforcing an invalid no-
solicitation rule and by interrogating employees
concerning their and other employees' union activities,
Respondent interfered with, restrained, and coerced
employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed them by
Section 7 of the Act and by such conduct engaged in and is
engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
3. By discharging Kenneth L. Gable, Billy
H. Robertson, Ernest L. Hannah, Thomas C. Wyche, and
John Robert Young, Jr., because of their union activities
and in order to discourage union activities among its
employees, Respondent engaged in unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act.
4. The aforesaid practices are unfair labor practices
affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and
(7) of the Act.
12 Smith's denial that on August 8, he knew that the Union was
conducting an organizing campaign but had only heard rumors of
it, in the face of the fact that three employees had theretofore
been discharged and a notice posted referring to the union
activity, does nothing to enhance his credibility in my opinion
13 Blue Flash Express, Inc, 109 NLRB 591
14 146 NLRB 770
WILLIAM L. BONNELL CO.
THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in unfair
labor practices and in order to effectuate the policies of
the Act, I shall recommend that the Company cease and
desist from the unfair labor practices found. I shall further
recommend that the Company offer to the employees,
named in the Appendix hereto, immediate reinstatement
to their former or substantially equivalent positions
without prejudice to their seniority and other rights and
privileges, and make them whole for any loss of pay sus-
tained by reason of the discrimination against them in-
cluding interest at the rate of 6 percent per annum, the
computation to be made in the customary manner in
accordance with the Board's Decision in F.W. Woolworth
Company, 90 NLRB 289, with interest as provided in Isis
Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and
conclusions of law and upon the entire record in the case,
it is recommended that the Respondent, William
L. Bonnell Co., Inc., its officers, agents, successors, and
assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Interrogating its employees in a manner violative of
the provisions of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
(b) Discouraging membership of its employees in
International Union, District 50, United Mine Workers of
America or any other labor organization by discharging or
otherwise discriminating against employees in regard to
their hire or tenure of employment or any term or
condition of employment.
(c) Promulgating and enforcing rules against union
solicitation on company time in order to interfere with
union organization or enforcing such rules while
permitting other types of solicitation on company time.
(d) In any like or related manner interfering with,
restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of
their rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which will
effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Offer to the employees named in the attached
Appendix immediate and full reinstatement to their former
or substantially equivalent position in accordance with the
section herein called "The Remedy" and make them
whole for any loss of pay they may have suffered by reason
of the Respondent's discrimination against them in the
manner set forth in the section of the Trial Examiner's
Decision entitled "The Remedy."
(b) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the
Board or its agents, for examination and copying, all
payroll records, social security payment records,
timecards, personnel records and reports, and all other
records necessary to analyze the amount of backpay due
under the terms of this Order.
(c) Post at -its place of business in Newnan, Georgia,
copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 1'
Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional
Director for Region 10, after being duly signed by the
Company's representative, shall be posted by the
Company immediately upon receipt thereof, and be
maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in
conspicuous places, including all placeswhere notices to
employees are customarily posted Reasonable steps shall
be taken by the Company to insure that said notices are
not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
115
(d) Notify the Regional Director of Region 10, in writing,
within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision , what steps
have been taken to comply herewith.16
15 In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the
Board, the words "a Decision and Order" shall be substituted for
the words "the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner" in the
notice In the further event that the Board's Order is enforced by
a decree of a United States Court of Appeals, the words "a Decree
of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order" shall
be substituted for the words "a Decision and Order "
16 In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the
Board, this provision shall be modified to read "Notify said
Regional Director, in writing , within 10 days from the date of this
Order, what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith "
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial
Examiner 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 interrogate our employees in a
manner violative of the provisions of Section 8(a)(1) of
the Act.
WE WILL NOT discourage membership in
International Union, District 50, United Mine
Workers of America, or any other labor organization
by discharging or otherwise discriminating against
employees in regard to their hire or tenure or
employment or any term or condition of employment.
WE WILL NOT promulgate and enforce rules against
union solicitation on company time in order to
interfere with union organization or enforce such
rules while permitting other types of solicitation on
company time.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner
interfere with, restrain, or coerce its employees in the
exercise of their rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the
Act.
WE WILL offer to the employees named below
immediate and full reinstatement to their former or
substantially equivalent position in accordance with
the section herein called "The Remedy" and make
them whole for any loss of pay they may have suffered
by reason of our discrimination against them.
Kenneth L. Gable Thomas C. Wyche
Ernest L. Hannah John Robert Young, Jr.
Billy H. Robertson
WILLIAM L. BONNELL CO.,
INC.
(Employer)
Dated By
(Representative ) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days
from the date of posting, and must not be altered, defaced,
or covered by any other material. -,-
If employees have any question concerning this notice
or compliance with its provisions, they may communicate
directly with the Board's Regional Office, 528 Peachtree-
Seventh Building 50 Seventh Street, N.E., Atlanta,
Georgia 30323, Telephone 526-5741.
298-668 0-69-9