Zenith Radio Corp. of Missouri

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 26, 1968

172 N.L.R.B. 1724 (N.L.R.B. 1968)

1724 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL
Zenith Radio Corporation of Missouri and Interna-
tional Brotherhood of Electrical Workers,
AFL-CIO and Ronald W. Alberty. Cases
17-CA-3425 and 17-CA-3468
August 26, 1968
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS FANNING
AND ZAGORIA
On May 14, 1968 , Trial Examiner John F. Funke
issued his Decision in the above -entitled proceed-
ing, 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 Trial Ex-
aminer 's Decision in Case 17-CA-3425, and a sup-
porting brief; the Charging Party in Case
17-CA-3425 filed an answering brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended , the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its
powers in connection with these cases 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
briefs, and the entire record in these cases, and
hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recom-
mendations of the Trial Examiner , with the limited
modification indicated herein.'
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order the Recom-
mended Order of the Trial Examiner as modified
below and hereby orders that the Respondent,
Zenith Radio Corporation of Missouri, Springfield,
Missouri, its officers , agents , successors, and as-
signs , shall take the action set forth in the Trial Ex
aminer 's Recommended Order, as so modified:
1. Add the following as paragraph 1(d) of the
Recommended Order:
"In any other manner interfering with, restrain-
ing, or coercing its employees in the exercise of the
right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist
LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
labor organizations, to bargain collectively through
representatives of their own choosing, and to en-
gage in other concerted activities for the purposes
of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or pro-
tection, or to refrain from any and all such activi-
ties."
2. Add the following paragraph to the notice:
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere
with, restrain , or coerce our employees in the
exercise of the right to self-organization, to
form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bar-
gain collectively through representatives of
their own choosing, and to engage in other
concerted activities for the purposes of collec-
tive bargaining or other mutual aid or protec-
tion, or to refrain from any and all such activi-
ties.
3. Amend the paragraph preceding the signature
line in the notice by deleting the words "the above-
named or any other" and substituting the word
"any."
' The Board finds it unnecessary to pass on whether a violation of Sec.
tion R(a)( I ) occurred at the pilot plant The Trial Examiner has confused
the location of the sidewalk at the pilot plant with that at the main plant
and has misstated the incidents occurring at the pilot plant No disciplinary
action was taken there and the Remedy would be the same as that which we
are ordering for the violation at the main plant The pilot plant is now
closed
TRIAL EXAMINER 'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
JOHN F. FUNKE, Trial Examiner: Upon a charge
filed December 6, 1967, by the International
Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO,
herein the Union, against Zenith Radio Corporation
of Missouri, herein Zenith or the Respondent, the
General Counsel issued a complaint dated January
25, 1968, in Case 17-CA-3425, alleging Respon-
dent violated Section 8(a)( 1) of the Act. Upon a
charge filed January 26, 1968, by Ronald W. Al-
berty, herein Alberty, against Zenith, the General
Counsel issued a complaint dated February 9,
1968, in Case 17-CA-3468, alleging Respondent
violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act. By
order dated February 13, 1968, the above cases
were consolidated and a notice of hearing was is-
sued by the General Counsel. The answer of
Respondent in the consolidated cases denied the
commission of any unfair labor practices.
This case, with all parties represented, was heard
before me at Springfield, Missouri, on March 20
and 21, 1968. At the conclusion of the hearing the
parties were granted leave to file briefs.
Upon the entire record in this case and from my
observation of the demeanor of the witnesses while
testifying, I make the following:
172 NLRB No. 185
ZENITH RADIO CORPORATION 1725
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
I. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT
Respondent maintains a plant and a training
center at Springfield , Missouri , where it is engaged
in the manufacture of color television sets . Respon-
dent annually sells products and merchandise
valued in excess of $50 ,000 to customers outside
the State of Missouri . Respondent is engaged in
commerce within the meaning of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The Union is a labor organization within the
meaning of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Case 17-CA-3425
1. The no-solicitation rule
The complaint alleges that Respondent promul-
gated and put in effect unlawful no-soliciation
rules.' Rule 19 of Respondent's Employee Rela-
tions Manual reads:
ployer.2 I therefore find that the prohibition of
distribution or circulation of literature on company
premises violates Section 8(a)(1) of the Act:'
In Republic Aluminum Co. v. N.L.R.B., 374 F.2d
183 (C.A. 5), cited by Respondent, the rule pro-
hibited employees who were off duty from entering
plant property without permission. This was not
the rule established in this case. Korn Industries,
Inc. v. N.L.R.B., 389 F.2d 117 (C.A. 4), also cited
by Respondent, the Board was reversed by the
court in its finding that a rule prohibiting distribu-
tion of literature on company premises on the
ground that the employer permitted distribution of
literature on its parking lot and permitted the
use of the union bulletin board for such pur-
poses (sic). The case presented conditions not'
found herein and in any event the Trial Examiner is
bound by the Board's and not the court's holding.'
The lengths to which the Board will go in holding
an employer guilty of violation in publishing a no-
solicitation rule is best illustrated by its decision in
Mock Road Super Duper, Inc., 156 NLRB 983, also
reversed on this point by the Sixth Circuit in
N.L.R.B. v. Mock Road Super Duper, Inc., 393 F.2d
432. The rule therein read:
SELLING AND SOLICITING
19. Unauthorized soliciting or collecting con-
tributions for any purpose whatsoever on
Company time, or unauthorized distribution
or circulation of literature, written or printed
matter of any description on Company
premises is unlawful.
The complaint further alleged that Respondent
kept under surveillance the union activity of its em-
ployees; threatened employees with discharge or
other reprisals if they became or remained mem-
bers of the Union; interfered with distribution of
the Union's authorization cards by employees on
Respondent's parking lot; and disciplined or
threatened to discipline employees for distributing
union literature.
I find that rule 19, supra, is as a matter of law a
violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. It is true
that the first portion of the rule proscribes solicita-
tion only on company time, but the second portion,
referring to distribution or circulation of literature,
contains no such limitation. Whether this was an
oversight or not the Board's construction of any
no-solicitation or no-distribution rules is, as _1 read
its decisions, strictly construed against the em-
I At the close of the hearing Respondent moved to dismiss the complaint
insofar as it alleged that rule 22 was also a violation of Section 8(a)( I) of
the Act The motion was granted
' The courts have generally agreed with the Board's construction
Stoddard-QuirA Manufacturing Co , 138 NLRB 615 The rule was set
forth by the Board in Walton Manufacturing Compare, 126 NLRB 697,
enfd 289 F 2d 177 (C A 5), as follows
No-solicitation or no-distribution rules which prohibit union solicita-
tion or distribution of union literature on company property by em-
For your protection, soliciting in any form will
not be permitted on store premises . Raffles,
pools , collections for any purpose , or the sale
of tickets or merchandise by employees or out-
siders may not conducted [ sic] without the ex-
press permission of the store manager.
There are no exceptions to this regulation and '
'you may request evidence of authorization
from anyone who is engaged in selling or sol-
iciting on the store premises . If anyone is found
violating this rule , please notify the store
manager.
In reversing the Board , the court commented that
the Board had reversed the Trial Examiner without
citation of any court decision and without attempt-
ing to read the provision it referred to as a "no-sol-
icitation rule" in context , nor with offering any
discussion as to how it reached its conclusion that
union solicitation could reasonably be inferred
within the language quoted. It added (at 435):
In the rule here under consideration the
word "soliciting " is used both in the title and
in content in conjunction with the word
ployees during their nonworking time are presumptively an unreasona-
ble impediment to self-organization , 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 [Foot-
note omitted 1
' Insurance Agents' International Union, AFL-CIO (The Prudential In-
surance Company of America), 119 NLRB 768, 773
1726 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
"selling," and only by a strained and artificial
interpretation can any reference to a union
solicitation be made.
I do not find that the rule in the instant case
requires the same degree of strained and artificial
construction as does the rule quoted above to find
it unlawful . Accordingly, I find it violative of Sec-
tion 8(a)(1) of the Act.
2. Enforcement of the rule
Respondent Zenith opened a pilot plant at
Springfield, Missouri, on March 13, 1967, and then
opened its permanent plant on December 1, 1967.5
Bertha Sopok testified that she was first em-
ployed at the pilot plant and that in September, Oc-
tober, and November she passed out union litera-
ture on the parking lot at the east door of the plant.
Floyd Robards, head of plant security, observed her
passing out the literature,' took her name and clock
number, and told her to get out of the parking lot
and do her distributing on the sidewalk which was
not part of the plant property. On December 1,
Sopok, together with other employees of the
Respondent and union organizers, was handbilling
the employees with union literature (G.C. Exh. 6).
At this time Sopok was wearing a badge (G.C. Exh.
5) identifying herself as a member of the Union's
organizing committee. Lee Kelso, captain of securi-
ty, and Robards came to her and Kelso asked for
her name and clock number. Robards and Kelso
also asked for the names and clock numbers of two
employees, Jerry Ducker and Ray Tummons, who
were with her.7 The time was 6:30 to 7 a.m. prior to
plant opening. On December 5, Sopok again hand-
baled at the new plant and was again asked by
Robards and Kelso for her pass, clock number, and
name . She was not, however, told to stop hand-
billing. Later that day Sopok was told by her super-
visor to go to personnel where she saw Robert Vor-
werk, personnel director. Vorwerk asked her if she
was aware of rule 19 and asked her to read it to
him. Vorwerk then asked her to read and sign a
memorandum (G.C. Exh. 2-f) which read:
This memorandum is to confirm our verbal
discussion pertaining to your unauthorized dis-
tribution of printed matter on the sidewalk at
the Plant Entrance, Tuesday morning,
December 5, 1967.
So that you are accurately informed, this type
of activity is a violation of Plant Rules, specifi-
cally Section 19, of Exhibit C, Page 44, of the
Employee Relations Manual.
The purpose of Plant Rules and Regulations is
to protect the mutual interest of the employees
and the employer and are not to restrict the
rights of anyone but to define and protect the
rights of all.
Sopok signed it. (This was signed under her then
married name of Bertha Meister.)
Sopok continued handbilling on either December
8 or 9 and again on December 13. On the 13th a
guard (identified as Mr. Crosswhite) asked for her
name and clock number.
On December 7, according to Sopok, Vorwerk
and the guards passed out a notice (G.C. Exh. 6)
shortly after 3:30 p.m. to employees leaving the
plant. This notice read:
TO ALL ZENITH RADIO CORPORATION
OF MISSOURI EMPLOYEES:
I thought a short letter should be sent to all
of you to bring you up to date on the union
situation.
The IBEW Union has filed a petition with
the National Labor Relations Board in Kansas
City asking that an election he held among
production and maintenance employees here
at the plant to see if they want a union. There
is some indication the IUE Union may also
seek to get on the ballot.
At this point , we have been in touch by
telephone with Government Officials to see
what legal steps are necessary to insure that all
rights of employees are protected . After all,
this is a very serious matter . It is a decision
which will affect the future of you , your family,
and Zenith.
Nothing concrete can be reported at this
time in regard to the election. As soon as any
decisions are made , however, rest assured we
will let you know . In the meantime, you have a
right to know exactly what Zenith 's position is
with regard to the Union.
Zenith is opposed to the IBEW, the IUE, or
any other union . The reason is short and sim-
ple. A Union can do little good for employees
or Zenith, and can do a lot of harm . It is not in
the best interest of Zenith employees-or
Zenith-to have any third party interfering in
our day-to -day relations.
We have a good program at Zenith-one
which will stand up against any unionized plant
in the country. It did not take a union to obtain
this, and it does not take a union to keep it.
Our policy has been-and will continue to
be-to run a plant on a business - like basis, giv-
ing fair treatment to all people . This is a
"must " so far as Zenith is concerned , and I in-
Unless otherwise specified all dates will refer to 1967
° The literature , according to Sopok, consisted of union authorization
cards
' Sopok's testimony as to December I was corroborated by Ducker
After Ducker's testimony the Trial Examiner then indicated he would ac-
cept no more testimony on dis tribution Since the facts respecting this issue
are not in serious dispute the testimony of the witnesses will not be
reviewed in detail
ZENITH RADIO CORPORATION
tend to see that this policy is carried out at all
times.
We are just getting off the ground. No
doubt, we have made some mistakes-who
hasn't? We intend to correct these mistakes as
fast as they come to our attention and follow a
course of constant improvement. There is
nothing the Union can add except confusion
and trouble.
I hope you will bear with us in the days
ahead. There will be rumors-and more ru-
mors-flying about. Please get the facts. If an
election is ordered, you will decide at the bal-
lot box-by secret ballot-whether or not you
want a union.
We will keep you informed.
1727
the close of the working day, not when the welders
were working, and I find no substantial evidence of-
fered by Respondent's witnesses to justify the im-
position of either rule 19 or 22. In short, I find
Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by
directing employees to distribute beyond the plant
gate, by directing them to distribute outside the
plant doorways, by asking them to read rules 19
and 22 and sign the statement, supra, General
Counsel's Exhibit 6, and by telling them it would be
placed in their personnel files.'°
I do not find that Respondent engaged in unlaw-
ful surveillance of the employees by observing their
activities at the plant or on plant premises. I believe
an employer has the right, under ordinary condi-
tions, to observe the conduct of employees and
others on its own premises.'
Sincerely yours,
James J. Rooney
Vice President
General Plant Manager
This notice was not alleged to be in violation of
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
Apart from Sopok, seven other employees were
required to sign identical memoranda by Vorwerk
for distributing union literature or authorization
cards on plant property. (G.C. Exhs. 2-a, b, c, d, e,
g, and h.) For the most part the handbilling took
place on a sidewalk within the plant area but on at
least two occasions during inclement weather the
employees stood in the doorway and handbilled.8
Respondent attempts to justify its prohibition
against handbilling by stating that distribution of
the literature on the sidewalk within the plant
premises' constituted a hazard to the employees
because cars were entering or leaving the parking
lot at the periods of distribution. I find this conten-
tion unsupported by the evidence. Cars which are
entering or leaving a parking lot are usually moving
at a slow speed after entrance and it is a reasonable
inference that the employees on the sidewalk did
not constitute a safety risk either to themselves or
the drivers and occupants of the cars. Nor do I find
that the Respondent established that its warning to
employees against the distribution at the doorways
of its plants on two occasions was justified on the
grounds that the literature constituted a fire hazard
or that the debris interfered with production. All
such activity was conducted either before or after
3. Interrogation and threat of discharge
Employees Ray B . Tummons and Jerry Ducker
testified that in late October or early November
they were wearing pocket pen and pencilholders
bearing the letters IBEW when they had occasion
to talk with Marsha Maloney, convergence board
supervisor . t2 Tummons testified that on the morn-
ing in question he left his table to get some parts
and that Marsha Maloney read the union insignia
and told him, "That 's a good way to get fired."
When he told her he thought the Company was
smarter than that , Maloney asked if he had heard
about a Mr. and Mrs. Jones being fired. 13
Ducker testified that he heard Maloney and
Tummons talking on this occasion and overheard
Maloney tell Tummons , pointing to the IBEW pen,
that that was a good way to get fired.
Maloney could not recall any such conversation
and denied that she ever told them they could be
fired for wearing their IBEW pens She could not
recall whether Tummons and Ducker were wearing
such sets.
There is no way of resolving this issue except by
guess. I found Ducker and Tummons to be credible
witnesses and see no reason why they would have
contrived their testimony . In any event I would not
find one casual remark made by a minor supervisor
in the presence of 2 employees out of a plant com-
plement of some 800 sufficient to warrant a
remedial order . 14 The remark was totally unrelated
to the course of conduct found unlawful herein.
"The finding that eight employees engaged in handbilling and were
asked for their names and pass numbers is based on the uncontradicted
testimony of Lee Kelso, captain of security
" It was stipulated that the sidewalk was approximately 30 feet from the
employees' entrance to the plant
"' Patio Foods, Inc , 165 NLRB 446, Stoddard-Quirl, Mfg , Co, 138
NLRB 615, Plant City Steel Corporation, 138 NLRB 839, Ertel Mfg Corp,
147 NLRB 312
" Harris Paint Co, 150 NLRB 72, 85 Nor do I find it necessary to make
a finding that Respondent engaged in a separate violation of the Act by tak-
ing down the names and addresses of the employees engaged in distribu-
tion This was merely part of the conduct found unlawful in its entirety
Since all of this conduct was unlawful, Respondent cannot justify the taking
of names and addresses on the ground it needed to know who were em-
ployees and who were not although, standing alone, such conduct might be
legitimate and necessary to protect its property against intruders
" Maloney's supervisory status was conceded
14 There is no evidence that any Mr and Mrs lones were fired
'4 Howell Refining Company, 163 NLRB 18, reversing , under similar cir-
cumstances, the Trial Examiner's finding of a violation
1728 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
B. Case 17-CA-3468
1. The demotion and/or failure to promote Ronald
W. Alberty
Ronald Alberty testified that he was first em-
ployed by Respondent on March 13, 1967, went
through and 8-week training period, and was then
assigned to test equipment. He was hired at $2.15
per hour, raised to $2.60 and then to $2.75. This
job was classified by Respondent as #1202. In
November the signal deck equipment was being in-
stalled and Alberty helped with the installation. On
or about November 20, Alberty was told by Super-
visor Larry Barnett that he was being considered
for the signal deck technician's job, which paid
$2.85 per hour. On December 1, Alberty was
moved to the signal deck and congratulated by Bar-
nett who told him he was now making $2.85 per
hour. This was on a Friday and he was told the
promotion would be made effective the following
Tuesday, December 5. On Thursday, December 7,
he was pulled off the signal deck, although he re-
ported there until December 14. On December 4,
Alberty first wore his IBEW button to work. Frank
Lorenz, who succeeded Barnett as test equipment
foreman, told him to take it off since he was now
on salary. Later Barnett, now promoted to superin-
tendent of test equipment, told Alberty to take off
the button and, when he refused, took him to the
office of William Miller, chief production engineer.
Miller also told him he had no right to wear the
button since he was now on salary. Alberty again
refused and was told to go back to work. About 1
hour later Barnett told him he wanted him (Al-
berty) to sign a checkoff sheet for the signal deck.
Later that day he was told by Lorenz that he would
not work overtime that day although he had been
working overtime 2 to 4 hours previously. The fol-
lowing day he worked only 2 hours overtime
although the rest of the plant was working 4. On
December 7, Alberty was still wearing his union
button and late in the afternoon of that day Barnett
asked him what he was doing on the signal deck.
From December 7 until December 14 Alberty
worked on the signal deck from 6:30 a.m. until 7
a.m., after which he worked on testing equipment.
On Friday, which would be December 15 (Al-
berty said it was about December 12), Alberty
inquired about his pay raise and was told by Barnett
that he was not on the signal deck and that Miller
had told him that there would be no promotion
until after the representation hearing before the
National Labor Relations Board scheduled for
is The Regional Director 's Decision and Direction of Election in Case
I7-RC-5621, dated February 7, 1968, included the signal deck technician
in the appropriate unit (G C Exh 3 ) The Respondent 's request for review
was denied by the Board with the exception that the unit placement of the
signal deck control technician , who was permitted to vote subject to chal-
lenge thus evading the necessity for decision by the Board (sic) Unlike the
Board , I find that the evidence in the instant case and the transcript of the
December 18.'s Barnett and Alberty again saw
Miller who told him he would not receive $2.85
because he was not working on the signal deck.
From that date on he reported to Lorenz and tested
equipment at $2.75 per hour.
Again the testimony of Respondent's witness did
not vary greatly in substance or significance from
that of the witness for the General Counsel. Thus
Chief Production Engineer Miller testified that he
told Alberty on December 4 that the job of signal
deck technician was a salaried job, that it would not
be included in any bargaining unit, and that it
"would restrict any affiliation with a union." When
Alberty asked whether it, referring to his union in-
signia , "Is it take it off or else?", Miller thought he
told him he would have to check on it and let him
know. Miller then consulted with General Manager
Rooney and was told to hold up the transfer of Al-
berty until there had been a Board ruling on his
status. Miller then so informed Alberty, in the
presence of Barnett on either December 6 or 7,
that the transfer was held up. The job, according to
Miller, was still open at the time of the hearing but
was being performed by one Fred Anderson. Miller
added that they needed a second man in the posi-
tion still unfilled.
While the Respondent may have had a good-faith
belief that Alberty was not entitled to engage in
union activity after promotion to the signal deck, I
find no grounds in law for its belief. The only
reason Alberty is not serving on the signal deck at
$2.85 is his advocacy of the IBEW which he clearly
indicated by wearing its insignia . Inevitably, there-
fore, Respondent's action in demoting and refusing
to reinstate him to his job discouraged union activi-
ty. The fact that no specific evidence exists to
establish the employer's discriminatory motive does
not preclude the finding of a violation of Section
8(a)(3) where the employer's conduct, as it does
here, inherently discriminates against union mem-
bership. Radio Officers' Union v. N.L.R.B., 347
U.S. 17.
2. Discrimination wtih respect to overtime
According to Alberty's testimony he received no
overtime assignment on December 4 and only 2
hours instead of 4 on December 5. On these days,
however, Alberty was working on the signal deck
and the record does not establish that any overtime
was required. Alberty applied for overtime on these
days as a test equipment operator and was denied
overtime on December 4 and given only 2 hours on
December 5. I do not find that the General Counsel
proceedings in Case 17-RC-5621 (Resp Exh 5 and also considering
Respondent 's "Request for Review " and its Appendix A in that case),
establish that the signal deck control technician has a sufficient community
of interest to be included with the other employees in the unit found ap-
propriate by the Regional Director The job paid only 10 cents more per
hour than Alberty had been receiving and required, on the record before
me, little on-the -job training and no study courses
ZENITH RADIO CORPORATION
has established discrimination in denial of overtime
since admittedly Alberty was working on his new
assignment on these days and no showing has been
made that overtime work was required. Indeed
every reasonable inference indicates it was not. I
would in any event dismiss this allegation on the
grounds that a denial of 6 hours' overtime would be
a de minimis violation of the Act.16
IV. THE REMEDY
Having found the Respondent engaged in and is
engaging in certain unfair labor practices it shall be
recommended that it cease and desist therefrom
and take certain affirmative action necessary to ef-
fectuate the policies of the Act.
Having found Respondent discriminated against
Alberty by demoting him from his job as signal
deck control technician and such demotion
discouraged his membership in the Union, it shall
be recommended that Respondent offer Alberty
full and immediate reinstatement to said job
without prejudice to his seniority and other rights
and privileges and make him whole for any loss of
pay he may have suffered by reason of said dis-
crimination . Backpay shall be computed in ac-
cordance with the formulae set forth in F. W. Wool-
worth Company, 90 NLRB 289, and Isis Plumbing
& Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716, and shall be com-
puted from the first day Alberty worked as signal
deck control technician."
It shall also be recommended that Respondent
remove from its personnel files all memoranda,
records, and other matter relating to violations of
rule 19 by any employees, insofar as said memoran-
da and records relate to distribution of union litera-
ture on sidewalks outside the plant and in doorways
to the plant.
Based upon the foregoing findings and conclu-
sions and the entire record in this case, I make the
following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. By maintaining in effect and enforcing rule 19
on page 44 of its Employee Relations Manual; by
interfering with the distribution of union literature
by its employees on its parking lot or in the door-
ways to its plant; and by requiring its employees to
sign the statements contained in the record as
General Counsel's Exhibits 2-a through 2-h,
Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
2. By demoting Ronald W. Alberty from his
position as signal deck control technician and
thereby decreasing his rate of pay and discouraging
his membership in or activity on behalf of the
Union, Respondent violated section 8(a)(3) and
'" It is the experience of this Trial Examiner that Examiners all too
frequently are being asked to travel long distances and waste their time and
the Government's money on issues which are not worth the attention of a
1729
(1) of the Act.
3. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair
labor practices within the meaning of Section 2(6)
and (7) of the Act.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
It is hereby ordered that Zenith Radio Corpora-
tion of Missouri , its officers, agents , successors, and
assigns , shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Maintaining in effect and enforcing rule 19
on page 44 of its Employee Relations Manual in-
sofar as said rule prohibits its employees from dis-
tributing union literature or authorization cards in
nonworking areas of its plant.
(b) Asking any employee engaged in distributing
union literature or authorization cards in nonwork-
ing areas on nonworking time to sign a statement
advising him that such distribution violated rule 19
and placing said statement in the employee's per-
sonnel file.
(c) Demoting any employee because he wore a
union insignia , thereby discouraging his member-
ship in the Union.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessa-
ry to effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Remove from its files and destroy any
memoranda, reports, or other documents placed in
the personnel files of any employee relating to
violation of rule 19 on page 44 of its Employee
Relations Manual and notify all such employees, in
writing, that said memoranda, reports, and docu-
ments have been removed and destroyed.
(b) Offer Ronald W. Albery full and immediate
reinstatement to his former position as signal deck
control technician without prejudice to his seniority
or other rights and privileges and make him whole
for any loss of wages he may have suffered by
reason of the discrimination practiced against him.
(c) 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.
(d) Notify said Ronald W. Alberty if presently
serving in the Armed Forces of the United States of
his right to immediate and full reinstatement to his
position as signal deck control technician in ac-
cordance with the Selective Service Act and the
Universal Military Training and Service Act, as
amended, after discharge from the Armed Forces.
(e) Post at its place of business in Springfield,
Missouri, copies of the attached notice marked
justice of the peace
" The record indicates Alberty was not paid $ 2 85 per hour for the 2
days he admittedly worked as signal deck control technician
1730 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL
"Appendix ." "' Copies of said notice , on forms pro-
vided by the Regional Director for Region 17, after
being duly signed by Respondent 's authorized
representative , shall be posted by it immediately
upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for
60 consecutive days thereafter , in conspicuous
places , including all places where notices to em-
ployees are customarily posted . Reasonable steps
shall be taken by Respondent to insure that said
notices are not altered , defaced , or covered by any
other material.
(f) Notify the Regional Director for Region 17,
in writing , within 20 days from the receipt of this
Decision , what steps have been taken to comply
herewith.19
IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the complaint,
as to all allegations not specifically found to be in
violation of the Act, be dismissed.
'" 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 Ap-
peals Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words "a Decision
and Order "
'" In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board,
this provision shall be modified to read "Notify the Regional Director for
Region 17, 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 Na-
tional Labor Relations Act, as amended , we hereby
notify our employees that:
WE WILL NOT maintain in effect or enforce
rule 19 on page 44 of our Employee Relations
Manual insofar as that rule forbids our em-
ployees to distribute union literature or union
authorization cards on parking lots or side-
walks or in doorways or other nonworking
areas of our plant during the employees' non-
working time.
WE WILL NOT require any employee to read
or sign a statement that he has read rule 19 or
threaten him with discipline for violation of
that rule because he has engaged in the dis-
LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
tribution of union literature or union
authorization cards on our parking lots and
sidewalks and in doorways to our plant during
his nonworking time.
WE WILL NOT demote any employee because
he wears a union button or other insignia or
because he engages in any other lawful union
activity.
WE WILL offer Ronald W. Alberty reinstate-
ment to his former job as signal deck control
technician without prejudice to his seniority or
any other rights and privileges and we will pay
him for any wages he lost because we demotedI
him.
WE WILL remove from our files and destroy
any memoranda , reports , or other documents
placed in the personnel files of any employees
relating to violations of said rule 19.
WE WILL notify , in writing , all such em-
ployees that said memoranda , reports, and
other documents relating to violations of rule
19 have been removed and destroyed.
All our employees are free to become or remain,
or to refrain from becoming or remaining , members
of the above-named or any other labor organiza-
tion.
Dated By
ZENITH RADIO
CORPORATION OF
MISSOURI
(Employer)
(Representative ) (Title)
Note: We will notify the above -named employee
if presently serving in the Armed Forces of the
United States of his right to full reinstatement upon
application in accordance with the Selective Ser-
vice Act and the Universal Military Training and
Service Act, as amended , after discharge from the
Armed Forces.
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecu-
tive 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 , 610 Federal Building, 601 East 12th Street,
Kansas City , Missouri 64106, Telephone 374-5282.