Certain-Teed Products Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 25, 1968

173 N.L.R.B. 332 (N.L.R.B. 1968)

332 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Gustin -Bacon Manufacturing Company Division of
Certain -Teed Products Corporation , and Certain-
Teed Saint Gobain Insulation Corporation and
Floyd D. Hume. Case 17-CA-3341
October 25, 1968
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS FANNING, JENKINS, AND
ZAGORIA
On July 31, 1968, Trial Examiner Sydney S. Asher,
Jr., issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceed-
ing, finding that the Respondents had engaged in
certain unfair labor practices and recommending that
they cease and desist therefrom and take affirmative
action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's
Decision. Thereafter, the Respondents filed excep-
tions to the Trial Examiner's Decision and a support-
mg brief, and the Charging Party filed a brief in
support of the Trial Examiner's Decision and an
answering 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
powers in connection with this case to a three-
member panel.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial
Examiner made at the hearings 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 this case, and hereby adopts the
findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the
Trial Examiner.
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, and hereby
orders that the Respondents, Gustin-Bacon Manu-
facturing Division of Certain-Teed Products Corpo-
ration, Kansas City, Kansas, its officers, agents,
successors, and assigns, and Certain-Teed Saint
Gobain Insulation Corporation, Kansas City, Kan-
sas, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns,
shall take the action set forth in the Trial Exam-
iner's Recommended Order.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
SYDNEY S ASHER , JR , Trial Examiner On September
20, 1967, Floyd D Hume, of Muncie, Kansas, filed a charge
against Gustin-Bacon Manufacturing Company Division of
Certain-Teed Products Corporation, Kansas City, Kansas,
herein called Respondent Gustin-Bacon, and Certain-Teed
Saint Gobain Insulation Corporation, Kansas City, Kansas,
herein called Respondent St Gobain After the filing of two
amended charges, the General Counsel of the National Labor
Relations Board issued a complaint on November 9, 1967. This
alleges that from on or about April 19, 1967, to on or about
May 17, 1967, Respondent Gustin-Bacon laid off Hume
because he advised his fellow employees that Respondent
Gustin-Bacon had been administering, or was attempting to
administer, a collective-bargaining contract between it and
Glass Bottle Blowers Association of the United States and
Canada, Local 84, AFL-CIO, herein called the Union, in a
manner unfair to Respondent Gustin-Bacon's employees It is
also alleged that on or about September 18, 1967, Respondent
St Gobain suspended Hume and on or about September 22,
1967, discharged him, and at all times since has failed and
refused to reinstate him, because he solicited his fellow
employees' signatures on a petition seeking to decertify the
Union It is alleged that, by this conduct, each Respondent
violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended (29 U S.C Sec 151, et seq.), herein
called the Act Thereafter the Respondents filed a joint answer
admitting certain jurisdictional facts but denying the commis-
sion of any unfair labor practices.
Upon due notice a hearing was held before me on December
21 and 22, 1967, at Kansas City, Missouri. All parties were
represented and participated fully in the hearing. At the
opening of the hearing the parties, by stipulation, amended the
pleadings in certain respects. After the close of the hearing,
each party timely filed a brief (that of the two Respondents
being a joint one). These have been duly considered.
Upon the entire record in this case,' and from my
observation of the witnesses, I make the following
FINDING OF FACT
The complaint alleges, the answer admits, and it is found
that each Respondent is, and at all material times has been, an
employer engaged in commerce as defined in the Act, and its
operations meet the Board's jurisdictional standards;2 and that
the Union is, and at all material times has been, a labor
organization as defined in the Act.
A. The Setting
The Union is, and at all material times has been, the
recognized collective-bargaining representative of the em-
i Page 322, line 10 of the transcript is corrected by striking
therefrom the words "the witness's" and substituting therefor the words
"that Hume's "
2 Each Respondent is, and at all material times has been , engaged in
the manufacture and wholesale sale of fiberglass and related insulating
products , with offices and plants in Kansas City , Kansas. Each
Respondent annually sells products valued at more than $50,000
directly to customers outside the State of Kansas , and annually
purchases materials valued at more than $50,000 directly from sources
outside the State of Kansas.
173 NLRB No. 56
GUSTIN-BACON MFG. CO. 333
ployees of each Respondent. In 1965 Respondent Gustin-
R-on's predecessor and the Union entered into a collective-
bargaining agreement governing the employees involved here.
This contract was assumed by Respondent Gustin-Bacon,
remaining in force and effect throughout all material times. It
contains a provision for cost-of-Irving adjustments at 3-month
intervals throughout the life of the contract. Schedule A,
attached to it, sets forth wage rates effective March 1, 1965,
March 1, 1966, and March 1, 1967 At the end of Schedule A
appears this sentence "These rates include the cost-of-living
up to date " As amended in December 1966, article XXVIII,
section 2 of the contract reads
Section 2. Except for activities necessary to the adminis-
tration of this Agreement or the adjustment of complaints
or grievances involving the interpretation or application of
this contract, no employee shall engage in any union
activities or solicit membership or participation in any
social, fraternal or other organization during working hours
in working areas on company property.
Two of the buildings in the Kansas City, Kansas, area with
which we are here concerned are designated plant 7 and
building 14. They operate continuously 24 hours per day, 7
days per week There are three shifts, the hours being 7 30
am. to 3 30 p.m., 3 30 to 11 30 p.m ;and 11 30 p.m. to 7 30
a.m. Building 14 operates essentially as a warehouse.
B Hume's Layoff
1. Facts
Floyd D. "Don" Hume was employed by Respondent
Gustin-Bacon as a single-line inspector in plant 7. For several
months prior to April 12,3 Hume had numerous discussions
with his fellow employees in the unit represented by the
Union. Some of these took place in working areas of the plant,
others in nonworking areas. Some occurred during working
hours, others outside working time. The subject of these
conversations was often the effect of the above-quoted
sentence: "These rates include the cost-of-living up to date."
Hume told his fellow employees that "under the terms and
conditions of that contract the company could screw them out
of a portion of their cost of living increases, specifically the six
cents an hour they were getting on March 1, 1967," and that
"when this contract is reopened ... management will take the
stand that .. the rates specified as of March the 1st, 1967,
will ... include the six-cents-an-hour cost of living that they
were receiving at that time."
Early in April, Norman K. Sigle, personnel manager of plant
7 and building 14, and James Ahart, manager of plant 7,
reported to Albert E. Johann, Jr., Respondent Gustin-Bacon's
vice president in charge of industrial relations, that Hume "was
spreading false information about the way the company had
handled and intended to handle the Schedule A raise and cost
of living implement." Johann responded: "That isn't good."
Roy Moss, president of the Union, also informed Johann of
Hume's activities. Johann answered that he would not "seri-
ously consider this complaint about Mr Hume's activities
unless it was documented in some way...." When Moss
pressed for details, Johann stated that he wanted wntten
statements that the complaining employees could identify
Hume, that Hume had been serious and not merely joking, and
"where and when" Hume had made the statements in
question Two to four days later, Moss delivered six mimeo-
graphed questionnaires to Johann, each bearing a different
name at the bottom. The first question was "Can you identify
Floyd Hume?" In each instance the answer "Yes" was written
in. The next question was "What was the accusation made by
Floyd Hume?" the answers written in, generally, accused
Hume of stating that the employees would not, or could not,
get the next 6-cent cost-of-living increase because this would
be, or might be, absorbed in the annual wage increase provided
in the contract. The next question was. "Date and place
accusation was made." Three wntten answers indicated the
place as a working area, the other three as a nonworking area
No answer related the time. The fourth question was. "Was the
accusation made against the company, the union, or both?"
Three answered "the Company" and the other three "both."
The final question was: "Was he serious, or was the accusation
made as a joke?" All six answered "serious " Johann directed
Sigle to determine whether the six individuals who purportedly
filled out these questionnaires were on Respondent Gustin-
Bacon's payroll. Presumably, although the record is not
entirely clear, this was done to Johann's satisfaction.
On April 19 Johann summoned Hume to his office, where
Ahart was also present. Johann stated that Moss "had told him
[Hume] was giving the company and the union a bad name
and that he ... wanted the company to see what they could
do about it." Then Jethro Love, a union steward, came in.
Johann asked Hume his interpretation of the relationship
between the annual wage raise and the cost-of-living increment.
Hume pointed to the above-quoted sentence and admitted
telling employees that "the Company could at any anniversary
date, or at the end of the contract, wipe out the cost of living
increase by simply establishing the Schedule A rate." Johann
asked Hume if he had checked his own paycheck recently, the
record does not reveal Hume's reply. Johann then stated that it
had been alleged that Hume made "some very false and
derogatory interpretations," and showed Hume the six ques-
tionnaires Hume examined them and categorized three as
"absolutely false," two as "correct," and the remaining one as
"partially correct." The record does not, however, particular-
ize which questionnaires were put in which category.
On April 21 Johann sent Hume a letter entitled "NOTICE OF
DISCIPLINARY ACTION." It read
This is your notice of Layoff as a DISCIPLINARY
ACTION. You will be laid off until MAY 17th, 1967. The
record will show this disciplinary layoff began with your
regularly scheduled shift April 19th, 1967. You will be
expected to report for work on your regularly scheduled
shift May 17th, 1967.
This Disciplinary Layoff results from:
(1) Incorrectly advising employees as to the Com-
pany's proposed application of pay provisions regarding
Cost of Living increment and Schedule "A" Rates.
(2) Carrying on such activity on Company time
and/or in Company work areas.
(3) and, Our review of your record of past violations
and resulting disciplinary action .4
3 All dates hereafter refer to the year 1967 , unless otherwise noted . 4 At that time Hume's personnel folder included a number of written
reprimands, the substance of none of which are here material.
334 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
In accordance with this letter, Hume remained on layoff until
the end of the specified period. Although the contract referred
to above contained machinery for processing grievances, Hume
filed no grievance regarding his layoff.
2. Contentions of the parties
The General Counsel contends that "Hume's statements
about the contract's interpretation were protected activity",
that these activities formed the basis for Respondent Gustm-
Bacon's decision to discipline Hume; that the six question-
naires were "a pretextual excuse for disciplining Hume"
because "whether he made [statements] on company time or
on non-company time was evidently of no real significance";
and finally that "the same result would follow even if some of
the statements made by Hume had occurred on company
time." Hume's attorney, pointing out that "the questionnaires
on their face are not the basis for a disciplinary discharge,"
maintains that "The lay-off could have only been caused by
Hume talking about the contract."
The Respondents, in their joint answer, admit that Respon-
dent Gustin-Bacon laid off Hume for the period in question.
At the hearing, the Respondents took the position that Hume's
"layoff was occasioned by the fact that he had deliberately
spread false, and in effect, malicious information with regard
to the alleged shorting of employees and because he engaged in
this practice, at least in part, during working hours...." In
their joint brief they argue:
Hume charged that the employees were being cheated on
their pay checks-in a word, defrauded.
A false accusation of such gravity certainly supports the
discipline meted out to Hume.... That Hume .. .
continued to spread slanders so readily belied was in itself
evidence of malice....
The malicious and defamatory untruths, uttered by
Hume ... were stated in work areas and on company time
Under the circumstances, [Respondent] Gustin-Bacon was
well within its rights in meting out to Hume a disciplinary
lay-off.
3. Conclusions
Clearly, Hume's statements to other employees regarding
the contents of the contract were critical of the manner in
which the Union performed its statutory function of bargain-
ing agent. Indeed, Hume testified, and I find, that the
statements were part of Hume's "long-range plan" to have the
Union decertified.5 Thus, these pronouncements were in-
tended to influence the employees' choice of bargaining
representative and therefore constituted concerted activities
within the meaning of Section 7 of the Act,6 unless they were
uttered at such a time, or their contents were such, as to lose
that protection.
Of course, "working time is for work,"7 and therefore to
the extent that Hume's conversations had taken place during
working time, they might well have been unprotected. On the
other hand, those discussions which had occurred outside
working time-and Respondent Gustin-Bacon was aware from
the questionnaires that a number of them had been so
timed-were protected. As the timing of the c' nversations was
only a subordinate reason for the discipline ,' and as the layoff
was imposed for all such discussions, both protected and
unprotected, we must turn to Respondent Gustin-Bacon's
principal defense; namely, the substance of the statements.
The defense begins with the premise that Hume's statements
were false. The Board has said-
It is abundantly clear that the discussion of self-
organizational activity by employees at a union meeting
... constitutes a form of concerted activity which the Act
was designed to protect. Reason dictates that, if this right is
to be accorded its proper place in the employer-employee
relationship, limitations should not lightly be imposed upon
employees' statements made in the course of such discus-
sion, for, otherwise, the right might become so qualified as
to be of doubtful value. In other words, it is essential that
employees be permitted the widest possible latitude in their
discussions at these meetings.
In our opinion, the protection accorded by the statute to
this form of concerted activity and to those who engage in
it against restraint and coercion on the part of the
employer, is in no way minimized by the fact that there
occurs an intentional or perhaps negligent mistatement of
facts. [Emphasis supplied.] 9
Accordingly, I do not feel called upon to decide whether, as
the Respondents contend, Hume's statements were, or Respon-
dent Gustin-Bacon believed them to be, "false."
There remains the question of whether Hume's statements
were defamatory, slanderous, malicious , or manifestly destruc-
tive of discipline . Bearing in mind that they were mere
statements of opinion or prediction of future conduct,
representing only Hume's individual interpretation of a some-
5 The contract bore a termination date of March 1, 1968. Under
Board contract -bar rules, a decertification petition could not normally
be filed until December 1, 1967. Leonard Wholesale Meats , Inc , 136
NLRB 1000 . In April , Hume was fully aware of the fact that it was then
too early to do more than merely lay the groundwork , for he testified
"I thought if I could inform these people and get the truth to them,
when the proper time came to circulate this petition it could help me
obtain signatures ...." (Emphasis supplied .) Moreover , in September
Hume further advanced his "long -term plan," as will appear hereafter,
by actually circulating such a petition The parties stipulated, and I find,
that these activities ultimately led to the filing on December 13, 1967,
of decertification petitions in Cases 17 -RD-343 and 17-RD-344.
6 Selwyn Shoe Manufacturing Corporation , 172 NLRB No. 81;
Golden State Bottling Company, Inc ., dlb/a Pepsi - Cola Bottling
Company of Sacramento , 147 NLRB 410 , 419, and Broderick Wood
Products Company, 118 NLRB 38, 59
7 Peyton Packing Company, Inc , 49 NLRB 823, 843.
8 Evidence of this is found in Johann 's original reaction to the news
of Hume's activities , his failure to investigate the questionnaires fully
although he knew of Moss ' personal antagonism toward Hume, the
absence of any data in the questionnaires concerning the time when
Hume spoke to the employee in question, failure to ascertain whether
the questionnaires themselves had been obtained during working time,
and Johann 's conversation with Hume on April 19. Compare Selwyn
Shoe Manufacturing Corporation, supra
9 Atlantic Towing Company , 75 NLRB 1169, 1171-72 See also The
Bettcher Manufacturing Corporation , 76 NLRB 526; and The Marlin
Firearms Company, 116 NLRB 1834. I am aware that a majority of the
United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (Hutcheson, C. J.,
dissenting) refused to enforce the Board 's decision in Atlantic Towing,
180 F.2d 726 , and 182 F.2d 625 (C.A. 5). But as a Trial Examiner, I am
bound "to apply established Board precedent which the Board or the
Supreme Court has not reversed ." Insurance Agents ' International
Union , AFL-CIO (The Prudential Insurance Company of America),
119 NLRB 768 , 773, and Novak Logging Company , 119 NLRB 1573,
1575-76.
GUSTIN-BACON MFG. CO.
what ambiguous sentence in the contract, I conclude that his
utterances were not so extreme as to furnish justification for
his layoff. They were therefore protected. I further conclude
that a substantial motivating factor in the decision to lay off
Hume on April 19 was Respondent Gustin-Bacon's desire to
punish him for making what it considered (correctly or
incorrectly) "false" statements to other employees and to
inhibit the future reiteration of similar utterances. For these
reasons, it is found that the layoff violated Section 8(a)(1) of
the Act.' 0
C. Hume's Suspension and Discharge
1. The setting
About June 27, Respondent Gustin-Bacon advised its
employees by bulletin that, as of July 1, the ownership of
plant 7 and building 14 would be acquired by Respondent St.
Gobain. The announcement stated that Respondent St. Gobain
would, on July 1, adopt the existing contract between the
Union and Respondent Gustin-Bacon. It also informed the
affected employees that they would continue to hold their
present job assignments. It added- "The people involved
simply automatically become employees of [Respondent St.
Gobain] as of July 1, 1967, with their employee records and
service intact." On July 1 Respondent St. Gobain posted
written plant rules, of which the following are relevant here:
1. Do not loiter on Company property before or after your
work hours.
7. Do not interfere or disturb another employee per-
forming his job duties.
15. Observe the rules of agreement as set forth in the Labor
Contract between the Company and the Union.
These plant rules remained in effect at all times after July 1.
Although there do not appear to have been any specific
written rules governing the subject, the generally followed
clocking procedure, acquiesced in by Respondent St. Gobain,
is, and at all material times has been, as follows: Employees on
the incoming shift in building 14 are permitted to clock in no
earlier than 15 minutes before their shift is to begin. Some of
those who clock in early proceed to the cafeteria inside the
building for coffee and wait there until the shift begins; others
who clock in early simply remain near the timeclock until the
shift begins. Employees on the outgoing shift in building 14
often quit work as much as 10 or 15 minutes early, then hand
in their orders, wash up, pick up their dinner buckets and go to
the timeclock to await the end of the shift, at which time they
clock out. The timeclock in building 14 is located on the wall,
about 5 feet from the pedestrian door, normally used by
employees entering or leaving the building when coming on or
going off shift. Near the timeclock, on the same wall, are a
company bulletin board and a union bulletin board.
Hume, who before the transfer of ownership had been
employed by Respondent Gustin-Bacon in plant 7, became, on
July 1, an employee of Respondent St. Gobain. His job
assignment and union representation remained the same as
10 The complaint also alleges that such discrimination against Hume
"encourage [ d] or discourage [ d] membership in any labor organization"
and thus also violated Section 8(a)(3) of the Act In my opinion this
need not be determined , as the Order hereafter recommended would be
the same in any event See The Marlin Firearms Company, supra, 1840.
335
formerly. Some time before September 18, Hume began to
circulate among his fellow employees, for their signatures, a
petition which reads
We, the undersigned bargaining unit employees of
CERTAIN-TEED SAINT GOBAIN INSULATION CORPO-
RATION, no longer desire to be represented by the
certified or currently-recognized bargaining representative
and request a NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
conducted election to determine its majority status.
Beneath this is space for signatures and dates. Prior to
September 18 Hume circulated this petition in the lobby of
plant 7 and in the parking lot in front of plant 7, presumably
on his nonworking time, without any protest or reprimand
from management.
2. The events of September 18 and thereafter
Hume was not scheduled to work on September 18. At 7
a.m. "D" shift was scheduled to go off duty, and "A" shift was
scheduled to go on. About 7 15 a.m. (15 minutes before
change of shift) Hume, armed with the petition described
above and a "Teamster authorization card," arrived at the
parking lot in front of building 14. There he obtained from a
fellow employee his signature on both the petition and the
card. Shortly after this, Hume entered building 14 through the
,edestrian door, proceeded about 3 feet into the building, and
stationed himself near the timeclock. Three or four employees
stood idly by the timeclock; another group of employees was
at least 6 feet away. It is not clear whether the groups were
made up of employees of "A" shift, or "D" shift, or both.
Almost immediately after Hume entered the building James E.
Wilson, stores foreman of Respondent St. Gobarn, approached
Hume and asked him what he was doing there. Hume replied
that he had a legal right to be there, that he was "under the
clock part of the bulletin board" and that he was circulating a
decertification petition. Wilson left the spot and sought his
superior, Claude Hughes, senior warehouse foreman for Re-
spondent St. Gobain Wilson informed Hughes that Hume was
circulating a decertification petition "by the clock." Both men
proceeded to where Hume was still standing near the time-
clock. Hughes asked Hume what he was doing there. Hume
replied that he was circulating a decertification petition.
Stating that Hume "was interfering with the men," Hughes
directed him to leave the building.' I Hume answered that he
had a legal right to be there "as he was under the bulletin
board and ... the time clock." Hughes repeated his order to
leave, but Hume stood firm. Hughes left and made a telephone
call. While Hughes was doing so, an employee standing near the
timeclock added his name to the petition, and Hume left
building 14 and stationed himself outside, about half way up
the steps leading to the pedestrian door. It was there that
Hughes found him when Hughes returned a few minutes later,
Hume was facing the door but not moving toward it. Hughes
ordered Hume to get off company property; Hume adamantly
insisted on his right to remain where he was The argument
became heated; voices were raised, and Hughes threatened to
punch Hume in the mouth At this point, Hughes was called to
the telephone and Hume left Respondent St. Gobaln's prop-
I I The finding that Hughes' order was to leave the building is based
on Hume's testimony. Hughes testified that he ordered Hume to leave
the working area On this point, I find Hume's testimony more credible
and more convincing than that of Hughes
336 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
erty. All the events described took place in the interval between
7.15 and 7:30 a.m. At no time did Hume go into building 14
more than 5 feet. That afternoon Sigle,i 2 in the presence of a
union steward, handed the following letter to Hume,
This will confirm telegram sent to you this date, which
reads as follows:
"This is to advise you that your employment has been
suspended pending further investigation, in accordance with
Article IV, Section 2 of the Labor Contract, as the result of
your activities of loitering on company property during
periods of time when your work shift was not scheduled,
and interfering with other employees during their regular
work shift.
These actions are in violation of posted Plant Rules.
By this telegram, you are advised not to come on to
company property except for the scheduled fact-finding
meeting which you will be advised of in accordance with
the Labor Contract."
Sigle also sent Moss, the Union's president, a copy of the
telegram. The decision to suspend Hume on September 18
seems to have been made jointly by Sigle and Kenneth Ferber,
acting plant superintendent of plant 7 and building 14 for
Respondent St. Gobain.
The factfinding meeting was held on September 22.13
Present were Sigle, Hughes, and Ferber representing Respon-
dent St. Gobain, Moss and two others, representing the Union,
and Hume. Sigle explained the purpose of the meeting and
asked Hughes to relate the events of September 18 between
7 15 and 7.30 a.m. Hughes complied. Sigle then invited Hume
to give his version. Hume reiterated his contention that he had
"a right to be in that particular location ... because that was
the place that the company had picked out to put up that
union bulletin board." He requested the names of all em-
ployees with whose work the company contended he had
interfered Hughes furnished the names of about eight em-
ployees who had been on "D" shift that day. Hume then asked
Hughes "to consider the first name and tell [Hume] how
[Hume] interfered with that employee's work." Hughes
responded. "What is this, a quiz program?" A discussion
ensued, during which Hume argued- "if they [the employees]
have a right to stand there and read that union [bulletin]
board they have a right to sign a decertification petition." Sigle
distributed copies of the plant rules to those present and stated
that Hume was accused of violating rules 1, 7, and 15. He told
Hume that, as Hume was not scheduled to work on September
18, Hume had no business being on company property. He
further stated that Hume had, at or about 7:15 a.m. that day,
"caused an interference with both supervisory and hourly
employees." Sigle also maintained that the contract clause
quoted above (article XXVIII, section 2) "allowed solicitation
in nonwork areas on nonwork time only," and that Hume had
carried on solicitation "in a work area." Hume offered to give
Sigle a copy of the petition which he had been circulatmg, but
Sigle declined it. At this point Respondent St. Gobain's
representatives withdrew temporarily and consulted together.
They jointly agreed that Hume should be discharged. They
then returned and announced to Hume and the Union's
representatives that because of Hume's violation of those rules
(1, 7, and 15) and "his ... previous personnel record,""
Hume was terminated. Five or ten minutes later, Moss brought
Sigle "a grievance for unjustifiable termination" signed by
Hume and Moss. This grievance is still pending. Hume left and
has never returned. On September 25 Sigle sent Hume a letter
which read-
This will confirm that on September 22, 1967, following a
Fact-Finding Meeting in which you participated, your
employment was terminated.
Specifically, you violated Rule # 1 which prohibits loitering
In addition, our investigation indicated to us a violation by
you of Rule # 7, relating to interfering with or disturbing
other employees performing job duties You were also in
violation of Rule #15, because the activities described in
Rules # 1 and # 7 were in working areas and otherwise were
a breach of the Labor Contract (Article XXVIII, Section 2,
as amended December 5, 1966).
In view of these violations of Plant Rules, and considering
your total employment record, we had no alternative but to
terminate your employment by this Company
3. Contentions of the parties
The General Counsel does not contend that plant rules 1, 7,
or 15, or article XXVIII, section 2 of the contract, are
unlawful on their face,15 but merely that they were applied
and interpreted by Respondent St. Gobain in a discriminatory
and unlawful manner. He maintains "that the area immediately
adjacent to and certainly within three to five feet, of the
timeclock and ... of the union bulletin board" constituted "a
non-working area." Alternatively, the General Counsel urges
that whether or not Hume was standing in a working area "is
completely immaterial" because what he was doing was
soliciting during his off time, and this protected activity "need
not be limited to non-working areas." Moreover, he urges,
Hume was suspended and discharged in September because of
all his activities on September 18 between 7:15 and 7.30 a.m.,
including his presence on the steps outside building 14, an area
which even under the Respondents' definition was a non-
working area. Hume's attorney argues that, "while Hume
entered Building 14 with the intent to solicit signatures for his
petition, he was immediately stopped by the foreman and he
solicited no one. The only persons he talked to were the two
foremen. Under the circumstances, it cannot be said he
engaged in union activities and the time and place he was
confronted by the foreman became immaterial."
The Respondents take the position that prior to September
18 Hume solicited in nonworking areas without hinderance,
that he solicited on September 18 in a working area, that
"there were employees working in the area at the time," and
12 Sigle had been personnel manager of plant 7 and building 14 prior
to July 1 , when these properties had been owned by Respondent
Gustin -Bacon. After the transfer of July 1, he continued in that
capacity for Respondent St. Gobain.
13 On the previous day, September 21, both Respondents had been
advised of the filing of the instant charges.
14 Hume's personnel folder, which was taken into account in
deciding to discharge him, contained a 10-year accumulation of various
and sundry documents , ranging from reports of physical examinations
to a copy of a letter Hume had written to the editor of a newspaper
concerning Section 14 (b) of the Act.
15 Accordingly, the issue of the Union's right to contract away the
rights of individual employees represented by it, although mentioned in
the General Counsel 's brief, is not properly before me for decision.
GUSTIN-BACON MFG. CO
that "he was discharged because he was judged by [Respon-
dent St. Gobain] to have violated plant rules 1, 7, and 15, and
because [Respondent St. Gobain] believed that such conduct,
viewed in conjunction with his previous personnel record,
called for termination of his employment."16
4. Conclusions
The record shows that work vehicles traveled up and down
the 15-foot aisle or passageway on the side of which the
timeclock was located. The Respondents therefore urge that
the area around the timeclock was a working area. I cannot
agree Employees coming on shift were permitted to stand near
the timeclock while waiting for their shift to begin. Indeed, on
the morning of September 18 some employees of the
oncoming "A" shift were standing around that area when
Wilson approached Hume, yet Wilson did not even suggest to
them that they move from there. Moreover, the Union and
Respondent St. Gobain (or its predecessor) had selected this
spot for placement of the company and union bulletin boards.
Admittedly, employees were permitted to stand there and read
these bulletin boards. For the above reasons I am convinced,
and find, contrary to the Respondents' contention, that the
area was not a working area within the meaning of either
article XXVIII, section 2, of the contract or of the Board's
rules governing solicitation.' 7 It follows, and I find, that
Hume's conduct of standing where he did when he did for the
purpose he had in mind was not a contract violation. On the
contrary, it constituted solicitation of employees by an
employee on the nonworking time of both the solicitor and
the employee being solicited and therefore fell within the
protection of Section 7.18
Insofar as the Respondents argue that Hume's presence
inside building 14 on September 18 interfered with the
operations then underway in the vicinity, or impeded em-
ployees from working efficiently in the area, the short answer
is that the record fails to support this Thus Hughes testified
concerning September 18-
Q. Do you know of any person that he [Hume]
talked to other than you and Mr. Wilson?
A. No
Q. . . Was there any man that you can recall, other
than yourself and Mr . Wilson, who were on company time
who either spoke to or were spoken to, themselves, by Mr.
Hume that you observed on the morning of September 187
A. No.
Q. Did you see anybody stop their work or slow down
their work as a result of Mr. Hume being there or while Mr.
16 No party raises the matter of Hume's pending grievance . Therefore
I merely note that such a grievance was filed by Hume 2 days after he
filed the charges herein, and that the grievance remains unresolved,
without deciding the effect of these facts.
17 See Stoddard-Quirk Manufacturing Co , 138 NLRB 615, 621, fn.
7.
18 Walton Manufacturing Company, 126 NLRB 697, enfd 289 F.2d
117 (C.A. 5), and Stoddard-Quirk Manufacturing Co., supra.
337
Hume was there, other than the men who were going off
shift9
A Not that I can recall
Wilson, the only other management representative to
observe Hume's activities that day, testified
TRIAL EXAMINER You mentioned an employee to
whom Mr. Hume had talked in your presence, an employee
who signed the petition, the paper9
THE WITNESS Yes
TRIAL EXAMINER And you remember who that em-
ployee was? I don't want his name, but you do remember
him specifically who it was?
THE WITNESS Yes.
TRIAL EXAMINER Was that individual employee, at
that time, on shift or off shift?
THE WITNESS He was coming in, he was an employee
on my shift, A shift 19
TRIAL EXAMINER And it hadn't started yet9
THE WITNESS I don't know He was punching in, either
punching in or getting ready to punch in.
TRIAL EXAMINER Was it 7 30 yet?
THE WITNESS No, it wasn't 7.30 yet
I am convinced that the only disturbance or interference
with employees on September 18, if in fact there was any,
occurred not as the result of Hume's protected activities, but
rather as the consequence of management's attempts to stifle
these activities Hughes' offer to punch Hume in the nose, in
particular, was hardly calculated to reduce the possibility of a
distrubance.
But even if, contrary to the above, Hume's presence in
building 14 on September 18 should be regarded as either a
contract violation or an interference with production, the
result would be the same. For the record demonstrates that the
Respondent seized upon the incident and used it to interfere
with Hume's right to solicit signatures on nonworking time in
admittedly nonworking areas. That Respondent St. Gobain
was motivated by a desire to insulate Hume from his fellow
workers is clearly shown by these facts: (1) On the morning of
September 18 Hughes at first ordered Hume out of the
building, thus denying him access to other nonworking areas
such as the cafeteria;20 (2) later, when Hume, in response to
Hughes' earlier order, had removed himself to the steps outside
building 14 (unquestionably a nonworking area) Hughes
ordered him off Respondent St. Gobain's property, (3) still
later that day Sigle's letter to Hume banished him from
company property between that date and September 22, and
(4) on September 22 Sigle stated that Hume had had no
business on company property on September 18 because he
had not been scheduled to work that day, and announced an
interpretation of plant rule 1 which, in effect, denied Hume
19 It should be noted that, at the factfinding meeting of September
22 Hughes , when asked by Hume for the names of those workers with
whose work he had interefered , named only employees on the outgoing
"D" shift.
20 The Respondents ' joint brief concedes that sometimes employees
"stand around the clock for several minutes waiting to go to work," and
notes that "If these people delay work in that area, they are sent to the
lunchroom ." (Emphasis supplied.)
338 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
entry to all Respondent St. Gobain's property-working as well
as nonworking areas-during his off hours, except for limited
purposes.2 i Each of these incidents constituted a separate and
distinct instance of illegal curtailment by Respondent St.
Gobain of Hume's protected right, on his own time, in
admittedly nonworking areas, to solicit off duty employees to
sign the decertification petition.
I conclude that because they constituted an unwarranted
infringement of Hume's protected concerted activities, and
also because they were motivated by a desire to inhibit such
activities, Respondent St. Gobain's suspension and discharge of
Hume on September 18 and September 22, respectively,
constituted violations of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.22
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact, and upon the
entire record in this case, I make the following
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1 Gustin-Bacon Manufacturing Company Division of
Certain-Teed Products Corporation, and Certain-Teed Saint
Gobain Insulation Corporation are, and at all material times
have been, employers within the meaning of Section 2(2) of
the Act, engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section
2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. Glass Bottle Blowers Association of the United States
and Canada, Local 84, AFL-CIO, is, and at all material times
has been, a labor organization within the meaning of Sec-
tion 2(5) of the Act.
3. By laying off Floyd D. Hume from April 19 to May 17,
1967, thereby interfering with, restraining, and coercing its
employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of
the Act, Respondent Gustin-Bacon has engaged in and is
engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act
4. By suspending Floyd D. Hume on September 18, 1967,
and by discharging him on September 22, 1967, thereby
interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the
exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act,
Respondent St Gobain has engaged in and is engaging in unfar
labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the
Act.
5. The above-described unfair labor practices tend to lead
to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the
free flow of commerce, and constitute unfair labor practices
affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and
(7) of the Act.
6 It is not necessary to rule upon the contention that
either or both of the Respondents has engaged in or is engaging
in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(3)
of the Act.
THE REMEDY
It will be recommended that Respondent Gustin-Bacon
cease and desist from the unfair labor practices it has
committed For aught that appears, however, the motivation
behind its conduct may well have merely been pique arising
from Hume's critical statements , rather than a basic antago-
nism towards the employees' freedom of choice of bargaining
representative. Accordingly, I do not believe that a broad
cease-and-desist order against Respondent Gustin-Bacon is
necessary, a narrow cease-and-desist order should, in my
opinion, suffice to effectuate the policies of the Act
Of course, the fact that Respondent Gustin-Bacon had since
then disposed of building 14 and plant 7 does not relieve it of
responsibility to remedy its own unfair labor practlces.2 3
Therefore, it will be recommended that Respondent Gustin-
Bacon (severally and jointly with Respondent St. Gobain, for
reasons set forth below) make Hume whole for any loss of pay
he may have suffered by reason of his layoff, by paying to him
a sum of money equal to the amount he would normally have
earned from April 19 to May 17, 1967, less his net earnings
during this period, plus 6 percent interest as set forth by the
Board in Isis Plumbing & Heating Co , 138 NLRB 716.
The situation with regard to Respondent St. Gobain is
somewhat different. No criticism of Respondent St. Gobain
was involved in Hume's circulation of a decertification
petition. It has already been found, above, that Respondent St
Gobarn acted against Hume not out of mere umbrage but for
much broader reasons; namely, its desire to silence opposition
to the Union This indicates a fundamental resistence to the
principle, spelled out in Section 7 of the Act, that the
bargaining representative should be of the employees' own
choosing. Judging from this past conduct, I conclude that
there exists danger that Respondent St Gobain might, in the
future, commit additional unfair labor practices to keep the
Union from being unseated. It will therefore be recommended
that Respondent St Gobain cease and desist, not only from
the unfair labor practices found, but also from in any manner
infringing upon the rights of its employees guaranteed in
Section 7 of the Act.
The Respondents vigorously urge that, in any event, it
would not effectuate the policies of the Act to require
Respondent St. Gobarn to reinstate Hume because his "strained
relationship . . with his employer, his fellow employees, and
the incumbent union" make him "unsuitable for rein-
statement." In support of this position, the Respondents
request me to take official notice of five unfair labor practice
charges previously filed by Hume against Respondent Gustin-
Bacon, and their disposition- Cases 17-CA-2772,
17-CA-2828, 17-CA-2835, 17-CA-2871, and 17-CA-
3031. I deny this request. In my opinion these five cases are
extraneous to the issues herein. The fact that Hume repeatedly
21 The Respondents , in their joint brief, seek to justify this denial of
entry on the ground that the interpretation of plant rule 1 "was
adopted pursuant to advice from the company 's insurance carrier " The
record contains only a brief and vague reference to this , no details have
been supplied regarding the time or place, the identity of the insurance
carrier , or the nature of the advice . Accordingly, I find no merit in this
contention.
22 This conduct is also alleged in the complaint to have been
engaged in "to encourage or discourage membership in any labor
organization" and thus violative of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act . Perhaps
hampering circulation of the decertification petition may be regarded as
attempting to compel allegiance to the Union and therefore as
encouraging union membership . However, for reasons set forth in The
Marlin Firearms Company, surpa , I decline to rule on this issue.
23 Perma Vinyl Corporation, etal., 164 NLRB No. 119.
GUSTIN-BACON MFG. CO
sought the aid of the Board to protect what he believed to be
his rights does not of itself show malice. Neither does the fact,
if shown, that his efforts were rebuffed 24
As for malice against the Union, Moss was given a
disciplinary layoff because on April 10 he
... became involved in and/or initiated, carried on and/or
promoted a heated and inflammatory argument with
another employee (Floyd D. Hume). During this argument
you [Moss] admit swearing at this employee, calling him
profane and abusive names and/or initiating and partici-
pating in producing a situation in which either or both
parties to the argument could reasonably expect that
physical violence to the person could occur at any moment
Surely, this indicates that Hume's antagonism toward the
Union was by no means unreciprocated. Yet the Respondents
do not contend that Moss is "unsuitable for employment"
because of his "strained relationship" with Hume In any
event, the Respondents' claim that Hume is unsuitable for
employment is inextricably interwoven with his known anti-
union activities, and constitutes an unwarranted attempt to
equate such protected concerted activities with unsuitability.
Even assuming, without deciding, that Hume's reinstatement
might intensify hard feelings among the employees, it is, as the
Board has said under somewhat similar circumstances, "the
price which must often be paid in order that the rights
guaranteed by Section 7 may be preserved."2 5 I conclude that
the alleged "strained relationship" provides insufficient reason
to deny reinstatement to Hume. Accordingly it will be
recommended that Respondent St. Gobain offer Floyd D
Hume immediate and full reinstatement to his former or a
substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to the
rights and privileges he previously enjoyed, and make him
whole for any loss of pay he may have suffered by reason of
the discrimination against him, by paying to him a sum of
money equal to the amount he would normally have earned
from September 18, 1967, the date of his suspension, to the
date of the offer of reinstatement, less his net earnings during
this period, computed on a quarterly basis in the manner
established by the Board in F. W Woolworth Company, 90
NLRB 289, including 6 percent interest as set forth by the
Board in Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., supra.
The General Counsel, in his brief, requests "that the
provisions for Hume's being made whole for the April layoff
be applied to both" Respondents. Respondent Gustin-Bacon
announced to its employees on June 29 that as of July 1 they
would retain their job assignments as employees of Respon-
dent St. Gobain "with their employees' records and service
intact " Thus there was continuity, the employing industry
remained the same, despite the change of ownership. Under
these circumstances Respondent St. Gobain must be viewed as
a bona fide successor to Respondent Gustin-Bacon. As such it
is responsible, along with its predecessor, for taking measures
to mitigate the effects of the predecessor's unfair labor
practices 26 Accordingly, it will be recommended that Respon-
dent St. Gobain, severally and jointly with Respondent
24 There is evidence that one of these unfair practice charges filed
by Hume forced an amendment to an otherwise illegal provision of the
contract herein. However , as I consider this immaterial , I make no
finding with regard thereto.
25 El Mundo, Inc., 92 NLRB 724, 726.
26 Perma Vinyl Corporation, eta!., supra.
339
Gustin-Bacon, reimburse Hume for any loss of pay sustained
because of his layoff of April 19 to May 17, in the manner set
forth above.
Finally, it will be recommended that each Respondent
preserve and make available to the Board, upon request, all
records necessary to compute the amount of backpay due
hereunder, and post appropriate notices.
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and conclusions
of law, and upon the entire record in this case, I make the
following.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
A. Gustin-Bacon Manufacturing Company Division of
Certain-Teed Products Corporation, Kansas City, Kansas, its
officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1 Cease and desist from
(a) Laying off employees or otherwise discriminating
against them in regard to their hire, tenure of employment, or
any term or condition of employment, because they engage in
concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or
other mutual aid or protection.
(b) In any like or related manner interfering with, re-
straining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed them in Section 7 of the Act, except to the extent
that such rights may be affected by an agreement requiring
membership in a labor organization as a condition of employ-
ment, as authorized in Section 8(a)(3) of the Act, as amended.
2 Take the following affirmative action which it is found
will effectuate the policies of the Act
Post at its plants in Kansas City, Kansas, copies of the
attached notice marked "Appendix A "27 Copies of the said
notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region
17, after being duly signed by its representative, shall be
posted by Respondent Gustin-Bacon immediately upon receipt
thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days
thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where
notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps
shall be taken by Respondent Gustin-Bacon to insure that
these notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other
material
B. Certain-Teed Saint Gobain Insulation Corporation,
Kansas City, Kansas, its officers, agents, successors, and
assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Suspending or discharging employees or otherwise
discriminating against them in regard to their hire, tenure of
employment, or any term or condition of employment,
because they engage in concerted activities for the purpose of
collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection.
(b) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or
coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed
them in Section 7 of the Act, except to the extent that such
rights may be affected by an agreement requiring membership
27 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 Appeals Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the
words "a Decision and Order."
340 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
in a labor organization as a condition of employment, as
authorized in Section 8(a)(3) of the Act, as amended.
2 Take the following affirmative action which it is found
will effectuate the policies of the Act
(a) Offer Floyd D. Hume immediate and full reinstatement
to his former or a substantially equivalent position, without
prejudice to his seniority and other rights and privileges
previously enjoyed, and make him whole for any loss of pay he
may have suffered by reason of his suspension and discharge in
September 1967.
(b) Notify Floyd D. Hume if presently serving in the Armed
Forces of the United States of his right to full reinstatement
upon application in accordance with the Selective Service Act
and the Universal Military Training and Service Act, as
amended, after discharge from the Armed Forces.
(c) Post at its plants in Kansas City, Kansas, copies of the
attached notice marked "Appendix B."2 8 Copies of the said
notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region
17, after being duly signed by its representative, shall be
posted by Respondent St Gobain immediately upon receipt
thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days
thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where
notices to employees are customarily posted Reasonable steps
shall be taken by Respondent St. Gobain to insure that these
notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other
material.
C. Both the above-named Respondents, their respective
officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
Take the following additional affirmative action which it is
found will effectuate the policies of the Act
(a) Jointly and severally make whole Floyd D. Hume for
any loss of pay suffered by him by reason of his layoff m April
and May 1967.
(b) Each individually shall preserve and, upon request,
make available to the National Labor Relations Board and its
agents, for examination and copying, all payroll records, social
security payment records, timecards, personnel records and
reports, and all other records necessary to determine the
amount of backpay due hereunder.
(c) Each individually shall notify the said Regional Direc-
tor, in writing, within 20 days from the receipt of this
Decision, what steps it has taken to comply herewith.29
WE WILL NOT lay off employees, or otherwise discrimi-
nate against them with regard to their wages, hours, or
other working conditions, because they engage in concerted
activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other
mutual aid or protection
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere
with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of
their right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist any
union, to bargain collectively through representatives of
their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities for
the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or
protection, and to refrain from such activities, except to the
extent that such right may be affected by an agreement
requiring union membership as a condition of employment,
as authorized in Section 8(a)(3) of the Act, as amended
WE WILL together with Certain-Teed Saint Gobam In-
sulation Corporation, reimburse Floyd D. Hume for any
loss of pay he suffered because of his layoff from April 19
to May 17, 1967, with six percent interest.
Our employees are free to become or remain, or to refrain
from becoming or remaining, members of any union, except to
the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement
requiring union membership as a condition of employment, as
authorized in Section 8(a)(3) of the Act, as amended.
GUSTIN-BACON MANUFACTURING
COMPANY DIVISION OF CERTAIN-
TEED PRODUCTS CORPORATION
(Employer)
Dated By
(Representative) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive 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 334-2611.
APPENDIX B
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
28 See fn. 27 , supra.
29 In the event that this Recommended Order should be adopted by
the Board , this provision shall be modified to read "Notify said
Regional Director , in writing , within 10 days from the date of this
Order, what steps it has taken to comply herewith."
APPENDIX A
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 National Labor Relations Act, as amended,
we hereby notify our employees that:
After a trial in which all parties had the opportunity to
present evidence, a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
'Relations Board has found that we violated the law and has
ordered us to post this notice and to keep the promises that we
make in this notice.
Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner of
the National Labor Relations Board and in order to effectuate
the policies of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended,
we hereby notify our employees that-
After a trial in which all parties had the opportunity to
present evidence, a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board has found that we violated the law and has
ordered us to post this notice and to keep the promises that we
make in this notice.
WE WILL NOT suspend or discharge employees, or
otherwise discriminate against them with regard to their
wages, hours, or other working conditions, because they
engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective
bargaining or other mutual aid or protection.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with,
restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of their
right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist any union,
to bargain collectively through representatives of their own
choosing, and to engage in other mutual aid or protection,
GUSTIN-BACON MFG CO
and to refrain from such activities, except to the extent that
such right may be affected by an agreement requiring union
membership as a condition of employment, as authorized in
Section 8(a)(3) of the Act, as amended.
WE WILL together with Gustin-Bacon Manufacturing
Company Division of Certain-Teed Products Corporation,
reimburse Floyd D. Hume for any loss of pay he suffered
because of his layoff from April 19 to May 17, 1967, with 6
percent interest.
WE WILL offer Floyd D. Hume immediate and full
reinstatement to his former or a substantially equivalent
job, without prejudice to his rights and privileges previously
enjoyed, and reimburse him for any loss of pay he suffered
because of his suspension on September 18, 1967, or his
discharge on September 22, 1967, with 6 percent interest.
WE WILL notify Floyd D. Hume if presently serving in
the Armed Forces of the United States of his right to full
reinstatement upon application in accordance with the
Selective Service Act and the Universal Military Training
and Service Act, as amended, after discharge from the
Armed Forces.
Our employees are free to become or remain, or to refrain
from becoming or remaining, members of any union, except to
341
the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement
requiring union membership as a condition of employment, as
authorized in Section 8(a)(3) of the Act, as amended.
CERTAIN-TEED SAINT
GOBAIN INSULATION
CORPORATION
(Employer)
Dated By
(Representative) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive 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 334-2611.