PPG Industries, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Administrative Judge Opinions

Mar 13, 2007

25-CA-030018 (N.L.R.B. Mar. 13, 2007)

JD(ATL)—9—07
Evansville, IN
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
DIVISION OF JUDGES
ATLANTA BRANCH OFFICE
PPG INDUSTRIES, INC.
and CASE 25-CA-30018
INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED
AUTOMOBILE, AEROSPACE &
AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT
WORKERS OF AMERICA, UAW
Belinda J. Brown, Esq., Counsel for
General Counsel.1
Thomas O. McCarthy, Esq. and Joseph
Mack, III, Esq., Counsel for
Respondent.2
Richard J. Swanson, Esq., Counsel for
Charging Party.3
DECISION
Statement of the Case
WILLIAM N. CATES, Administrative Law Judge. This case involves allegations
of interference with employee rights. I heard this case in trial in Evansville, Indiana, on
January 25, 2007. This case originates from a charge filed on July 3 and amended on
September 12, 2006, by International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace & Agricultural
Implement Workers of America, UAW (Union). The prosecution of this case was formalized
on November 27, 2006, when the Regional Director for Region 25 of the National Labor
Relations Board (Board), acting in the name of the Board’s General Counsel, issued a
Complaint and Notice of Hearing (complaint) against PPG Industries, Inc. (Company).
Specifically it is alleged that from about May 16 through June 15, 2006, the Company
through the actions of its agents and supervisors violated Section 8(a)(1) of the National

1 I shall refer to Counsel for General Counsel as Government Counsel.
2 I shall refer to Counsel for Respondent as Counsel for the Company.
3 I shall refer to Counsel for the Charging Party as Union Counsel.
JD(ATL)—9—07
2
Labor Relations Act, as amended, (Act) by prohibiting employees from distributing Union
handbills on the driveway at the Company’s facility; by interrogating its employees about
their union membership, activities, and sympathies and the union membership, activities, and
sympathies of other employees; and, by threatening its employees with job loss if the
employees selected the Union as their collective bargaining representative.
The Company, in its timely filed answer to the complaint, acknowledged it is an
employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act and is subject to the Board’s
jurisdiction. The Company denies having violated the Act in any manner alleged in the
complaint.
The parties were given full opportunity to participate, to introduce relevant evidence,
to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to file briefs. I carefully observed the demeanor
of the witnesses as they testified. I have studied the whole record, the parties’ briefs, and the
authorities they rely on.
Findings of Fact
I. Jurisdiction, Labor Organization Status, and Supervisor/Agent Status
The Company is a corporation with an office and place of business located in
Evansville, Indiana, where it is, and has been, engaged in the business of manufacturing glass
products. During the 12 months preceding the issuance of the complaint, a representative
period, the Company purchased and received at its facility goods valued in excess of $50,000
directly from points outside the State of Indiana. The evidence establishes, the parties admit
and I find, the Company is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section
2(2), (6) and (7) of the Act.
The parties admit and I find the Union is a labor organization within the meaning of
Section 2(5) of the Act.
Director of Finance Ted Richardt (Director of Finance Richardt or Richardt) and
Supervisor of Manufacturing Services Jackie Debes (Supervisor Debes or Debes) are
supervisors and agents of the Company within the meaning of Section 2(11) and (13) of the
Act, and I so find.
II. Alleged Unfair Labor Practices
A. Distributing Union Handbills
It is alleged at paragraph 5(a) of the complaint that on or about May 16, 2006, the
Company, by Director of Finance Richardt, at the Company facility, prohibited employees
from distributing Union handbills on the driveway at the Company’s facility.
JD(ATL)—9—07
3
1. Facts
The Company manufactures automotive glass (windshields, for example) for original
equipment as well as replacement glass for major automobile manufacturers as well as
satellites of the automobile companies. The plant takes up approximately 30 of the 65 acres it
is located on. The plant operates three shifts per day Monday through Friday. The plant is
located just off Inglefield Road (State Highway 41 running east and west) in Evansville,
Indiana. The driveway leading into the plant from Inglefield Road flares out on either side for
approximately 20 feet then the driveway has a guard rail along the side as it proceeds into the
Company parking lots.
Twenty-five year employee Gary Weber (Weber) testified he was a member of the
Voluntary Organizing Committee (VOC) for the Union in its early May, 2006, organizing
campaign at the Company. Weber stated VOC members attended meetings of the Union and
handbilled at the Company. Weber also wore at work, probably twice a week, pro-Union “T”
shirts and/or pro-Union buttons. Weber’s immediate supervisor Jeff Cardin observed Weber
wearing Union paraphernalia at work. Weber testified VOC members handbilled at the
Company once or twice per week starting in May 2006.
Weber stated, he, and other employees including Ron Kimmel, Tom Taylor, Pat
Mulherin and Dick Stuart hand billed at the Company between 7 a.m. and 8 a.m. on May 16,
2006. Weber testified he and his fellow workers were 5 to 7 feet apart along the plant
entrance road where the driveway begins to curve. Non-employees were hand billing off
Company property on Inglefield Road. Weber said those hand billing were on the edge of the
driveway but would walk into the driveway to give a handbill to anyone that stopped for one.
Weber testified Director of Finance Richardt stopped his automobile and “rolled down his
window and told us to get off the property.” According to Weber, one of the handbillers
responded, that they worked at the Company. Weber testified Richardt “just zipped his
window up and took off.” This incident took place at approximately 7:30 a.m. while the
employees hand billing were on Company property.
Weber stated, on cross-examination, this was the second day for those hand billing and
that they hand billed after May 16, 2006. Weber acknowledged those hand billing were
normally at the entrance to the plant and at the entrance to the building itself. Weber stated no
employees were ever disciplined for hand billing. Weber also admitted on cross-examination
that the Company’s solicitation policies specifically provided employees could handbill in
non-working areas including parking lots. Weber stated that those hand billing on the
morning in questioned, utilized the exit part of the road from the plant to hand drivers that
stopped handbills. Weber testified that after Richardt spoke with them they did not move
from where they were nor did they stop hand billing. Richardt never thereafter said anything
to those hand billing according to Weber.
Twenty-five year employee Robert Pruitt, a member of VOC, wore pro-Union “T”
shirts, hats and buttons at work and was observed doing so by his immediate supervisor Fred
Murphy. Pruitt testified there were 10-12 persons hand billing on May 16, 2006 and he along
with 4 or 5 others were on the side of the driveway. Others he recalled being there were Chris
JD(ATL)—9—07
4
Kite, Ron Kimmell, Gary Weber and Kim Ross. Pruitt said non-employees hand billed along
Inglefield Road off Company property. Pruitt testified he had an encounter with Director of
Finance Richardt while hand billing that morning. Pruitt testified, “I tried to hand him a
handbill. He rolled his window down and I tried to hand him a handbill and he told me to get
off the property.” Pruitt told Richardt, “we was all employees that was standing down here.”
Pruitt testified Richardt replied, “he didn’t care, get off.”
Pruitt acknowledged on cross-examination being familiar with the Company’s
solicitation policy that allowed employees to handbill in non-work areas including employee
parking lots as well as the entrance to the plant. Pruitt readily acknowledged VOC members
hand billed for the Union at the Company two or three days a week from early May until the
Board conducted election on June 28, 2006. Pruitt was never disciplined for hand billing
including the May 16, 2006, occasion. Pruitt acknowledged standing in the middle of the exit
lane on May 16 when actually passing out handbills. Pruitt participated in hand billing at the
plant before and after May 16, 2006.
Pruitt acknowledged that in his pre-trial affidavit, provided to the Board, he had stated
he tried to give Richardt a handbill and that Richardt did not take it and stated “he didn’t care
who we were, that he wanted us back out on the road.” However, Pruitt insisted Richardt also
told them he wanted them off the property. Pruitt and the others continued to handbill where
they were even after the encounter with Richardt. Pruitt and others continued, throughout the
Union campaign, to handbill at the entrance to the driveway at the plant and at the plant
entrance itself.
Twenty-six year employee Ronald Kimmell, a member of VOC, wore union “T” shirts
and/or buttons to work daily and in the presence of his immediate supervisor Jeff Cardin.
Kimmell testified that on May 16, 2006, approximately 10 persons were hand billing at the
Company facility with the non-employees remaining off Company property along Inglefield
Road while he and three or four employees hand billed along the driveway into the Company
parking lot and entrance. Those he hand billed with stood on and in the exit lane of the
entrance driveway. According to Kimmell, Director of Finance Richardt “stopped there in
front of me and rolled his window down and said we don’t want you here, get out of here, this
is PPG property, we don’t want you’re here.” Kimmell said no one responded in any way to
Richardt.
Kimmell acknowledged on cross-examination he was aware that Company policy
allowed employees to handbill in non-work areas including driveways and employee parking
lots. Kimmell engaged in hand billing “virtually” every time hand billing occurred at the
plant including hand billing before and after May 16, 2006. Kimmel was never disciplined
for hand billing. Kimmel testified that following May 16, 2006 “[w]e decided there was
congestion up there, people coming in, so we decided, well, we’ll just go to the door and catch
them at the door instead of maybe, having an accident. . .” Kimmell explained that those hand
billing started first at the plant entrance but that Richard congestion with traffic backing up on
Inglefield Road so they moved down the driveway but that also caused congestion and safety
issues so they “just decided to go … to the door” to alleviate congestion and potential safety
issues.
JD(ATL)—9—07
5
Director of Finance Richardt testified he arrived at the driveway entrance to the plant
on May 16, 2006, at approximately 7:45 a.m. where he observed employees hand billing as
they had done on earlier occasions. Richardt explained that on the earlier occasions those
hand billing had done so at the top of the driveway where it flanges out for approximately 20
feet. However he stated that on the morning of May 16, “… there were four or five of them
[hand billing employees] … strewn down the driveway … [a]s opposed to being at the top
where the driveway opens.” Richardt “pulled alongside the middle of where they were” and
“a young lady approached the car.” Richardt “opened the window and said you need to move
back to the -- towards the head of the driveway.” Richardt said she simply responded, “oh
okay.” Richardt said Kimmell approached and said, “[s]omething like whats going on? And I
said I just told her they need to be moving back to the - - towards the head of the driveway.
And his response was “oh.” Richardt closed his car window and drove on. Richardt
explained he asked those hand billing to move back towards the road because, “… there’s not
enough room in that area [where they were] to be strewn out along the road. There’s plenty of
room at the top of the driveway where it flares out for them to not be obstructing traffic or to
pose a safety threat for themselves or anyone else.” Richardt did not have any further
conversations with those hand billing at the plant, and he specifically denied telling
employees they had to get off Company property or that he did not want them there.
2. Credibility Resolutions
From the testimony of employees Weber, Pruitt and Kimmell as well as Company
Director of Finance Richardt, it is clear certain facts regarding the hand billing is not in
dispute. First, hand billing took place during the morning hours of May 16, 2006. Employees
had engaged in hand billing before and after that date. Those engaging in hand billing were
pro-Union supporters who were employee members of the VOC as well as some non-
employees. Employees that engaged in the hand billing were never disciplined for doing so
and the Company’s policies, known to those hand billing, permitted employees hand billing
during non-working time in non-working areas including the driveway, employee parking lots
and the entrance to the plant buildings. It is clear that four or five employees engaged in hand
billing along the entrance driveway leading into the employee parking lots and plant entrance
on May 16, 2006. It is clear that the employees engaging in hand billing that morning were in
the middle of the exit lane of the driveway when they actually gave the hand bills to those
willing to accept them. It is undisputed that Company Director of Finance Richardt stopped
and spoke to at least some of those hand billing that morning. There is a dispute as to what
exactly was said during the brief encounter.
Employees Weber, Pruitt and Kimmell testified, in essence, that Richardt told them to
get off Company property and even continued to insist those hand billing get off the property
after he was advised they were employees. I am persuaded the three employee witnesses
knew what they were talking about and did so truthfully. While their three accounts were not
exactly the same, I do not view such as warranting a contrary conclusion as to their
credibility. For example, Kimmell said no one responded when Richardt told them to get off
Company property whereas Weber and Pruitt recalled Richardt being told those hand billing
were employees. Although Pruitt’s pre-trial affidavit account of the encounter reflected
JD(ATL)—9—07
6
Richardt wanted the employees hand billing to get back on the road he explained that Richardt
also said he wanted them off the property.
I specifically do not credit Company Director of Finance Richardt’s testimony that he
simply told “a young lady” and Kimmell that morning that they needed to be moving back
towards the head of the driveway and that they responded “oh” and “oh okay.” After
observing all of the witnesses that gave testimony about the hand billing incident I do not
believe it went as simple and as non-confrontational as Richardt described the encounter.
3. Guiding Principle
The Board in St. Lukes’ Hospital, 300 NLRB 836, 837 (1990) stated the distribution
by off-duty employees of union literature in company parking lots is clearly protected by
Section 7 of the Act. The Board noted that except where justified by business reasons a rule
which denies off-duty employees entry to parking lots, gates, and other outside non-working
areas will be found invalid. The Board in Meijer, Inc., 344 NLRB No. 115, slip op. at 3 (June
29, 2005) made it quite clear that a prohibition against distributing literature in a nonworking
area outside an employer’s facility constitutes an unlawful restriction under Section 8(a)(1) of
the Act.
4. Analysis and Discussion
Here the Company, by its own policies, allowed distribution of literature to include
union literature in non-working areas including driveways, employee parking lots, and at its
plant entrances. However, it appears Company Director of Finance Richardt moved away
from the Company’s stated policy and sought to enforce an unlawful restrictive policy that, if
followed, would prohibit hand billing along the driveway leading to the employee parking lots
and plant entrances. The restrictive prohibition Richardt placed on the employees the
morning of May 16, 2006, not only violated the Company’s own policy, it violated Section
8(a)(1) of the Act and I so find. The Company advanced no legitimate business
considerations necessary to justify Richardt’s interference with its employees Section 7 right
to distribute union literature along the driveway into the employee parking lots and plant
entrances. The Company presented no evidence of actual safety concerns. The hand billing
may have been inconvenient for some such as Richardt on the morning in question but mere
inconvenience does not establish a legitimate business justification for the interference herein.
The fact the interference only occurred on one occasion does not warrant a dismissal of the
allegation. The interference came during the union campaign when the Company committed
other unfair labor practices. Finally, it is of no consequence that those hand billing later
decided to move from the driveway to the plant entrances to avoid any congestion or
inconvenience to others.
B. Interrogation
It is alleged at paragraph 5(b) of the complaint that on or about June 1, 2006, the
Company, by Supervisor of Manufacturing Services Jackie Debes, at the Company’s facility,
JD(ATL)—9—07
7
interrogated its employees about their union membership, activities, and sympathies and the
union membership, activities and sympathies of other employees.
1. Facts
Eight-year fork lift driver Tarrell Thomas, a member of the VOC, wore pro-Union
buttons and “T” shirts at work each day after the Union started its campaign in May 2006.
Throughout his employment Thomas has been supervised by Debes. According to Thomas,
Debes called him to her office on June 1, 2006, for his performance evaluation. Their
meeting lasted 30 plus minutes with approximately 20 minutes devoted to Thomas’
“performance and some attendance issues.” Thomas testified that before he left Debes’s
office she mentioned to him that “she couldn’t help but take notice of … my shirt. She said
… she didn’t really want to ask, but she said, well, I would ask anyway what is it that I’m
seeking, what do I feel like the union’s going to do for me.” Thomas answered and Debes
responded “how she felt about the Union, stating … that we tried to unionize out here before
and it didn’t work and stating that she didn’t feel like it was a good time for things of that
nature.” According to Thomas, Debes asked if the employees had in mind who they might
select for office and told him she personally “had some people in mind that she would select
for office if that happened.”
Thomas acknowledged on cross-examination he was “constantly visible” in showing
his support for the Union. Thomas said it was also well known he not only supported the
Union but tried to convince other employees to do the same. Thomas acknowledged he did
not feel any pressure to answer Supervisor Debes questions about the Union and explained he
viewed her questions as: “I felt that she was asking me that question to put me in the position
to squirm a little bit in front of her, not as far as her asking the questions. I didn’t have a
problem with answering the question. I felt like she was trying to apply some pressure on me
because of the fact that I had my union shirt on and that I was actively supportive. I didn’t
feel pressured about answering the questions. I didn’t have a problem with that.”
Thomas’ account of his conversation with Supervisor Debes was not disputed. I credit
Thomas’ testimony outlined above.
2. Guiding Principles
It is an 8(a)(1) violation of the Act for an employer to engage in conduct which
reasonably tends to interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of their
Section 7 rights to self-organization, to form, join or assist a labor organization. An
employer’s motive for questioning an employee, as well as whether an employer’s coercion is
successful or otherwise is not relevant. American Tissue Corp., 336 NLRB 435, 441 (2001).
The Board has held interrogation is not a pre se violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
Rossmore House, 269 NLRB 1176 (1984), affd. sub nom. Hotel Employers Union Local 11
v. NLRB, 760 F.2d 1006 (9th Cir. 1985). Stated differently, in determining whether an
interrogation is unlawful, the Board examines whether, under all the circumstances the
questioning reasonably tends to interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of
their Section 7 rights. Under the Board’s totality-of-the-circumstances test to determine
JD(ATL)—9—07
8
whether questioning of an employee constitutes unlawful interrogation the Board considers, in
part, criteria referral to as the “Bourne factors.” See: Rossmore House, 269 NLRB 1176,
1178 fn. 20 (1984); Bourne v. NLRB, 332 F.2d 47, 48 (2nd Cir. 1964). The Bourne factors call
for an examination of such factors as whether the interrogated employee is an open and active
union supporter, the background of the interrogation, the nature of the information sought, the
identity of the questioner, and the place and method of interrogation. The Board views the
analytical standard as an objective one, that is, whether a reasonable employee would
experience coercion or interference from the nature of the interrogation, not whether the
actual employee in question felt coercion or interference. I shall evaluate the interrogation
herein considering the principles and standards referred to above.
3. Analysis and Conclusion
It is without question that Thomas was a visible and vocal supporter of the Union. He
wore Union buttons and shirts to work daily and attempted to persuade his fellow workers to
support the Union. Thomas was called alone to his supervisor’s office for his evaluation. His
supervisor spent a great portion of the meeting discussing Thomas’ job performance and
attendance habits. Supervisor Debes could readily observe Thomas was for the Union but she
chose not to stop at merely knowing he supported the Union. She wanted to know what he
felt the Union was going to do for him and added that employees had tried to unionize before
and it didn’t work out. Supervisor Debes then told Thomas she did not think it was a good
time for things of that nature. I am persuaded a reasonable employee would find Supervisor
Debes’ comments coercive interference. Supervisor Debes informs an employee, while she is
evaluating him, that unionizing didn’t work out at the plant before and she did not think it was
the time for the employees to be attempting to again unionize the plant. Supervisor Debes did
not let the union matter rest even at that point. She continued to interrogate to ascertain who
others were that supported the Union by asking Thomas who the employees had in mind to
select as officers for the Union. Debes even told Thomas she had employees in mind for
union positions if the Union prevailed.
I find, as alleged in the complaint, that Supervisor Debes inquiries constituted coercive
interrogation in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. It is of no consequence that Thomas
did not personally feel coerced by Supervisor Debes’ questions.
C. Threats of Job Loss
It is alleged at paragraph 5(c) of the complaint that on or about June 15, 2006, the
Company, by Supervisor of Manufacturing Services Jackie Debes, at the Company’s facility,
threatened its employees with job loss if the employees selected the Union as their collective
bargaining representative.
1. Facts
Twenty-seven year employee Vernon Roger Coleman (Coleman) was a visible Union
supporter who wore Union buttons to work daily and Union “T” shirts a few times. Coleman
stated his supervisor, Jeff Cardin, observed him wearing the Union “T” shirts and buttons.
JD(ATL)—9—07
9
Coleman testified he reported for work in the afternoon of June 15, 2006. Coleman in going
to his work area went “[s]traight through … a main aisleway” “past the supervisors” including
Supervisors Cardin, Morrel and Debes. Coleman testified he more or less jokingly said to
Supervisor Debes as they passed that he was doing two or three jobs at the same time that day.
Coleman testified; “She [Debes] stated that, if the UAW got into our plant, that I wouldn’t
have a job—probably wouldn’t have a job working at PPG anymore.” Coleman said Debes
“more or less wasn’t joking” that “she didn’t crack a smile” she “just more or less said it and
turned around like she was finished talking with me.” Nothing else was said between them,
and Coleman proceeded to his work area.
Coleman acknowledged on cross-examination he could not be exact as to the date or
time of day his conversation with Debes took place but he believed it was on June 16, 2006.
Coleman also acknowledged he had a good relationship with Supervisor Debes and that they
laughed and joked frequently. Coleman said Supervisor Cardin was close enough to he and
Supervisor Debes to have overheard their conversation.
Supervisor of Manufacturing Services Debes supervisors 45 to 47 forklift and other
drivers along with two clerks. Debes never supervised Coleman on a regular basis but would
supervise him when she was filling in for some other supervisor on weekends. Debes said she
met with and greeted employees working for her at an area near the end of Line 1 where all
employees passed by. She said this was as an area where other supervisors also met with their
employees, one or two at a time, to give them their job assignments for the day. Pay checks
are also distributed from this location. The area is referred to as the “hitching post.”
On the day in question in mid-June 2006, Supervisor Debes was present at the
“hitching post” along with Supervisor Cardin, who actually supervised Coleman. Debes said
Administrative Supervisor Morrel would also be in the “hitching post” area on some
occasions but not every day. Supervisor Morrel no longer works for the Company. Debes
acknowledged she often spoke with Coleman as he came through the “hitching post” area but
stated she did not have any conversation with Coleman on June 15, 2006, about the Union.
Debes specifically denied telling Coleman that if the Union got in he wouldn’t have a job.
Supervisor Debes said she had been trained not to threaten or interrogate employees nor make
promises to them or spy upon them during a union campaign.
Supervisor Cardin testified he was present in the “hitching post” area on June 15,
2006, but did not see or hear Supervisor Debes talking with Coleman. Cardin specifically
stated he did not hear Debes tell Coleman that he wouldn’t have a job or probably wouldn’t
have a job if the Union got in. Cardin acknowledged he did not know who or how many
employees Debes spoke with that day in the “hitching post” area.
2. Credibility Resolutions
Coleman was a soft spoken witness with a sincere demeanor who seemed to know
what he was talking about. His overall bearing, manner of speaking and mannerisms
convinced me to accept his testimony as truthful. I credit Coleman’s testimony.
JD(ATL)—9—07
10
3. Guiding Principles
An employer violates Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by threatening employees with the
loss of job or discharge for engaging in protected activity. Bestway Trucking, 310 NLRB 651,
671 (1993), enfd. 22 F.3d 177 (7th Cir. 1994). Such a statement violates Section 8(a)(1) of the
Act, however, only if under all the circumstances the statement tends to restrain, coerce, or
interfere with an employee’s rights guaranteed by the Act. See e.g. GM Electric, 323 NLRB
125, 127 (1997). I shall evaluate the statement herein pursuant to these guidelines.
4. Analysis and Conclusions
I am fully persuaded that Supervisor Debes’ statement to Coleman that he “wouldn’t
have a job” or “probably wouldn’t have a job working at PPG anymore” if the Union got into
the plant is a clear threat of job loss that violates Section 8(a)(1) of the Act and I so find. I
note Coleman contended Debes was serious when she made her comments to him. I would
make the same finding even if Debes was joking or smiling as she verbally threatened
Coleman with the loss of his job if the Union came into the plant.
Conclusions of Law
1. PPG Industries, Inc., is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning
of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
2. The International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace & Agriculture
Implement Workers of America, UAW is a labor organization within the meaning of Section
2(5) of the Act.
3. The Company violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by engaging in the following
conduct.
(a) Prohibiting its employees from distributing Union handbills on the
driveway at the Company’s facility in Evansville, Indiana.
(b) Coercively interrogating employees about their union membership,
activities and desires and the union membership, activities, and sympathies of other
employees.
(c) Threatening employees with job loss if the employees selected the
Union as their collective bargaining representative.
4. The unfair labor practices of the Company described above affect commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
JD(ATL)—9—07
11
The Remedy
Having found that the Company has engaged in certain unfair labor practices, it is
ordered to cease and desist and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the
policies of the Act.
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on the entire record, I issue the
following recommended:
4
ORDER
The Company, PPG Industries, Inc., Evansville, Indiana, it officers, agents,
successors, and assigns shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Prohibiting its employees from distributing Union handbills along the
driveway at its Evansville, Indiana facility.
(b) Coercively interrogating its employees about their union membership,
activities, and sympathies and the union membership, activities, and sympathies of other
employees.
(c) Threatening its employees with job loss if the employees selected the
Union as their collective bargaining representative.
(d) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing
employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to effectuate the policies of the
Act:
(a) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at its Evansville,
Indiana, facility copies of the attached notice marked “Appendix.”5 Copies of the Notice To
Employees, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 25 of the Board, after
being signed by a Company authorized representative, shall be posted by the Company and
maintained for 60 consecutive days, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices
to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Company to
ensure that the notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any material. In the event that,

4 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the Board’s Rules and Regulations, the
findings, conclusions, and recommended Order shall, as provided in Sec. 102.48 of the Rules, be
adopted by the Board and all objections to them shall be deemed waived for all purposes.
5 If this Order is enforced by a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice
reading "POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD" shall read
"POSTED PURSUANT TO A JUDGMENT OF THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
ENFORCING AN ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD.”
JD(ATL)—9—07
12
during the pendency of these proceedings, the Company has gone out of business or closed
the facility involved in these proceedings, the Company shall duplicate and mail, at its own
expense, a copy of the Notice To Employees to all current employees employed by the
Company at any time since May 16, 2006.
(b) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file with the Regional
Director of Region 25 a sworn certification of a responsible official on a form provided by the
Region attesting to the steps the Company has taken to comply.
Dated, Washington, D.C., March 13, 2007.
_________________________
William N. Cates
Associate Chief Judge
JD(ATL)—9—07
13
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
Posted by the Order of the
National Labor Relations Board
An Agency of the United States Government
The National Labor Relations Board has found that we violated Federal labor law and
has ordered us to post and obey this notice.
FEDERAL LAW GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO
Form, join, or assist a union
Choose representatives to bargain with us on your behalf
Act together with other employees for your benefit and protection
Choose not to engage in any of these protected activities.
WE WILL NOT prohibit our employees from distributing Union handbills along the
driveway at our Evansville, Indiana, facility.
WE WILL NOT interrogate our employees about their union membership, activities,
and sympathies and the union membership, activities, and sympathies of other employees.
WE WILL NOT threaten our employees with job loss if our employees select the
Union as their collective bargaining representative.
PPG INDUSTRIES, INC.
(Employer)
Dated: By:_______________________________________________
(Representative) (Title)
The National Labor Relations Board is an independent Federal agency created in 1935 to
enforce the National Labor Relations Act. It conducts secret-ballot elections to determine
whether employees want union representation and it investigates and remedies unfair labor
practices by employers and unions. To find out more about your rights under the Act and
how to file a charge or election petition, you may speak confidentially to any agent with the
Board’s Regional Office set forth below. You may also obtain information from the Board’s
website: www.nlrb.gov.
575 North Pennsylvania Street, Room 238, Indianapolis, IN 46204-1577
(317) 226-7413, Hours: 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.
THIS IS AN OFFICIAL NOTICE AND MUST NOT BE DEFACED BY ANYONE.
THIS NOTICE MUST REMAIN POSTED FOR 60 CONSECUTIVE DAYS FROM
THE DATE OF POSTING AND MUST NOT BE ALTERED, DEFACED, OR
JD(ATL)—9—07
14
COVERED BY ANY OTHER MATERIAL. ANY QUESTIONS CONCERNING THIS
NOTICE OR COMPLIANCE WITH ITS PROVISIONS MAY BE DIRECTED TO
THE ABOVE REGIONAL OFFICE’S
COMPLIANCE OFFICER, (317) 226-7413
THIS NOTICE AND THE DECISION IN THIS MATTER ARE PUBLIC RECORDS
Any interested individual who wishes to request a copy of this Notice or a complete copy of
the Decision of which this Notice is a part may do so by contacting the Board’s Offices at the
address and telephone number appearing immediately above.