Extract
Avondale Mills, 840 (1962)
For the foregoing reasons, we find that the General Electric X-Ray rule should not be applied to this case, and therefore that the contract is a bar. Accordingly, we shall dismiss the petition.
[The Board dismissed the petition.] Avondale Mills and Textile Workers Union of America, AFLCIO.' Cases Nos. 10-CA-f200 and 10-CA-;2274. March 20,1956 DECISION AND ORDEROn October 28, 1955, Trial Examiner John C. Fischer issued his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report attached hereto. The Trial Examiner also found that the Respondent had not engaged in certain other unfair =labor practices and recommended that the complaint be dismissed with respect to such allegations. Thereafter, the General Counsel filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a supporting brief. The Respondent filed a brief in support of the Intermediate Report.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 Intermediate Report, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts his findings, conclusions, and 'recommendations only to the extent consistent with our Decision and `Order herein.1. The Trial Examiner found that the Respondent violated Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act by interrogating employees concerning their union membership, views, and activities; threatening them with loss of benefits, loss of employment, and a plant shutdown, if the Union organized its mills; and soliciting employees to withdraw from the.Union. No exceptions to these findings have been filed and we adopt these findings.2. The Trial Examiner also found that the General Counsel f ailed to prove that the Respondent, in violation of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act, promulgated and enforced a no-union-solicitation rule for discriminatory reasons. He therefore concluded that the discharge of employees Jones, Rich, and Parker for violating this-rule was protected. We do not agree with these findings.1 As the AFL and CIO merged after the hearing in this case, we are taking notice of the merger and amending the designation of the Charging Party accordingly.115 NLRB No. 130.As indicated in the Intermediate Report, the so-called rule in question was actually a warning that the Respondent read to a number of individual employees who the Trial Examiner found were suspected of soliciting union membership in the mills during working hours.The warning stated that: 'It has come to our attention that you are attempting to solicit union membership in this plant during working hours, while the employees that you are attempting to solicit are at work. This is a violation of plant rules and any further instances of this sort will result in prompt dismissal.' Although the Respondent contends that the warning reiterated a long-standing rule,l every employee witness who testified on the subject, with one possible exception, denied knowledge of such a rule. The only exception was an employee (McCain) called by the Respondent as a witness who testified generally that he heard it was against company rules to solicit on the job.' But whether these warnings served to revive an unwritten, dormant plant rule or amoiintecl to a promulgation of a new rule is not particularly important for, in either event, we find persuasive evidence in the record that the Respondent promulgated or invoked the rule for the purpose of interfering with and coercing- employees in the exercise of their legitimate self-organizational rights.It is settled law that a rule prohibiting union solicitation during working hours is valid provided it is not promulgated or utilized in order to prevent or impede the organization of its employees.' In the present case, such a discriminatory purpose is revealed in the Trial Examiner's factual findings and the evidence in the record.Thus, instead of generally publicizing its newly adopted or revived rule to employees, as one would expect of an employer solely concerned with plant production and efficiency, the Respondent at the very inception of the Union's membership drive singled out a number of employees ostensibly suspected of engaging in union solicit...See the full content of this document
Sponsored links
