Extract
United Parcel Service, Inc., 441 (1972)
United Parcel Service, Inc. and John K. Ryan, Gerald Minogue, David Pallozzi, Daniel Hickey, Jerome Fryling, Bruce Jones, David Ross, Gerald Vinehout,
Harold Legnard, William Cain, Thomas Grant, William Folderman, Frank Giering, Martin Rolfe, John Hubicki, Richard N. Foland, Richard Thomas, John A. Parks, Shaun Brennan, William J. Butch. Cases 3-CA-4118, 3-CA-4118-2, 3-CA-4118-3, 3-CA4118-4, 3-CA-4118-5, 3-CA-4118-6, 3-CA4118-7, 3-CA-4118-8, 3-CA-4118-9, 3-CA4118-10, 3-CA-4118-11, 3-CA-4118-12, 3-CA-4118-13, 3-CA-4118-14, 3-CA-4118-15, 3-CA-4118-16, 3-CA-4118-17, 3-CA-4118-18, 3-CA-4118-19, and 3-CA-4118-20February 17, 1972 DECISION AND ORDERBY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS FANNINGAND JENKINSOn January 21, 1971, Trial Examiner Benjamin A.Theeman issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision. He also found that Respondent had not engaged in certain other unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint.Thereafter, Respondent filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision and a supporting brief; the General Counsel filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision and a supporting brief; the Charging Party filed cross-exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision and a supporting brief; and Respondent filed a brief in answer to the General Counsel's exceptions.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 briefs, and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner only to the extent consistent herewith.The Trial Examiner found that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act when it posted the notice to its employees regarding the wearing of the uniform and accessories and the prohibition against the wearing of the 'Ryan' button.' The Trial Examiner relying on the ' The Trial Examiner concluded that the wearing of the 'Ryan ' button 195 NLRB No. 77 fact that the notice was addressed to 'All Employees' concluded that the prohibition necessarily limited the rights of the inside employees as well as the rights of the drivers when they were working in the plant.Respondent contends that the wearing of 'intraunion' election campaign material is not a protected activity and that, in any event, the notice by its terms only applied to drivers and that the drivers knew and understood that it only applied to them when they were out on deliveries and meeting the customers and general public. We agree with the Respondent's latter contention.The record clearly shows that the notice found to be a violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by the Trial Examiner specifically concerned the company uniform and company regulations regarding the wearing of accessories with the uniform. Since the inside work...See the full content of this document
Sponsored links
