Lance, Inc., 655 (1979)

Extract

---

Lance, Inc., 655 (1979)

LANCE, INC.

Lance, Inc. and Bakery, Confectionery and Tobacco Workers International Union, AFL-CIO, Local, 111.1 Cases 16 CA-7491, 16 CA-7741, and 16

CA-7911

April 2, 1979 DECISION AND ORDER

BY CHAIRMAN FANNING AND MEMBERS PENEILO

AND TRUESDALE

On December 20, 1978, Administrative Law Judge James L. Rose issued the attached Decision in this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed exceptions 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 authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.

The Board has considered the record and the attached Decision in light of the exceptions and brief and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings,2 and conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge and to adopt his recommended Order, as modified herein.' We agree with the Administrative Law Judge, essentially for the reasons given in his Decision, that Respondent orally promulgated an unlawfully broad no-solicitation/no-distribution rule of September 8, 19774 and that Respondent posted a facially valid nosolicitation/no-distribution rule on September 20, but that Respondent permitted employees to solicit for charitable organizations and for commercial concerns on company premises while taking action against certain employees for similarly soliciting on behalf of the Union.5

In this regard, we concur in the Administra'The name of the Charging Party appears as amended at the hearing.

2 Respondent has excepted to certain credibility findings made by the Administrative Law Judge. It is the Board's established policy not to overrule an Administrative Law Judge's resolutions with respect to credibility unless the clear preponderance of all of the relevant evidence convinces us that the resolutions are incorrect. Standard Dr' Wall Products, Inc., 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd. 188 F.2d 362 (3d Cir. 1951). We have carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing his findings.

At various places in his opinion, the Administrative Law Judge refers to employees Randy Hadlock as the recipient of an unlawful oral reprimand.

The record shows the name of the employee in question to be Randy Tadlock. We hereby correct this error.

We shall modify the recommended Order by including a paragraph requiring Respondent to cease and desist from orally reprimanding employees for soliciting on behalf of the Union in violation of an unlawful no-solicitation rule and by altenng par. 2(a) to require Respondent to take appropriate affirmative action to remedy only the discharge of employee Richard Saye, inasmuch as we find herein that Respondent lawfully terminated employee David Dodson.

'All dates herein are in 1977, unless otherwise indicated.

Employee Stuart testified that commercial products of Avon. Home Intenor, and Stanley were sold in the plant and that charitable solicitation on behalf of the Girls Scouts, the United Way, and the blood bank was likewise allowed. She also stated that a blood bank solicitation had occurred as recentl...

See the full content of this document

---