Honda of America Mfg., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 8, 1982

260 N.L.R.B. 725 (N.L.R.B. 1982)

DFCISIONS OF NATIONAL I.AH()OR REI.ATI()ONS HOARD
Honda of America Mfg., Inc. and International
Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agri-
cultural Implement Workers of America
(UAW). Case 8-CA-13947
March 8, 1982
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBEIRS FANNING, JENKINS, ANI)
ZIMM1.IRMAN
On October 19, 1981, Administrative Law Judge
Thomas D. Johnston issued the attached Decision
in this proceeding. Thereafter, the Respondent filed
exceptions and a supporting brief, and the Charg-
ing Party and the General Counsel filed briefs in
support of the Administrative Law Judge's Deci-
sion.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the at-
tached Decision in light of the exceptions and
briefs and has decided to affirm the rulings, find-
ings, and conclusions of the Administrative Law
Judge and to adopt his recommended Order.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Re-
lations Board adopts as its Order the recommended
Order of the Administrative Law Judge and
hereby orders that the Respondent, Honda of
America Mfg., Inc., Marysville, Ohio, its officers,
agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action
set forth in the said recommended Order.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
THOMAS D. JOHNSTON, Administrative Law Judge:
This case was heard in Marysville, Ohio, on July 15,
1981, pursuant to a charge filed by the International
Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural
Implement Workers of America (UAW), on June 23,
1980,' and a complaint issued on October 10.
The complaint, which was amended at the hearing, al-
leges that Honda of America Mfg., Inc. (herein called
the Respondent), violated Section 8(a)(l) of the National
Labor Relations Act, as amended (herein called the Act),
by unlawfully promulgating and maintaining a rule 2 con-
cerning the wearing of uniforms and maintained and en-
forced said rule selectively and disparately by prohibiting
an employee from wearing a hat with a union emblem
during working and nonworking time, thereby interfer-
ing with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the
All dates referred to are in 1980, unless otherwise stated
2 The rule is set out, infra.
260 NLRB No. 97
exercise of their rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of
the Act.
The Respondent in its answer served on October 18
denies having violated the Act. It further contends the
rule was promulgated about June 25, 1979, rather than
on the date alleged and that it has maintained its work
rules in a uniform and consistent manner.
The issues involved are whether the Respondent vio-
lated Section 8(a)( I) of the Act by promulgating and
maintaining an unlawful uniform rule and whether it un-
lawfully enforced said rule selectively and disparately
against an employee for wearing a union hat during
working and nonworking time.
Upon the entire record in this case and from my obser-
vations of the witnesses and after due consideration of
the briefs filed by counsel. I hereby make the following:
FINI)INGS OF FAC-
I. THF BUSINESS Of THE RiESPONI)ENT
The Respondent is an Ohio corporation with its facili-
ty located in Marysville, Ohio, is engaged in the business
of the manufacture and sale of motorcycles. During the
course of its operation the Respondent annually ships
goods valued in excess of $50,000 directly from its
Marysville, Ohio, facility to points located outside the
State of Ohio.
The Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
11. THE1 I ABOR OR(,ANIZATION INVOI.VII)
International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace
and Agricultural Implement Workers of America
(UAW), is a labor organization within the meaning of
Section 2(5) of the Act.
iI. THEI UNFAIR I.ABOR PRACTICES
A. Background
The Respondent operates a plant in Marysville, Ohio,
where it is engaged in the manufacture and sale of mo-
torcycles. Honda Motor of Japan owns 20 percent of its
shares and the remaining shares are owned by the Re-
spondent. This is the only Honda manufacturing facility
in the United Scates.
The plant employs approximately 400 employees, in-
cluding about 40 office and managerial type employees.
They are not represented by any labor organization. In-
cluded among its official and supervisory personnel are
Executive Vice President and Plant Manager Shige Yo-
shida, Personnel Associate Relations Manager Allen
Kinzer, Foreman Eugene Fryman, and Manufacturing
Manager Robert Muth.3
The main plant building, which also contains a cafete-
ria, is approximately 250,000 square feet in size and there
is a boilerroom located in a separate building.
: These individuals are supervisors under the Act
725
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL .ABO()R REL ATIONS BOARD
B. Rule on Wearing Unifirms
Since the Respondent began hiring employees in April
1979. it has maintained a policy regarding the wearing of
uniforms. This policy, which is contained in a book of
rules dated August 13, 1979, and issued to newly hired
employees, is as follows:
U.NItfOR MS
Honda of America. Mfg. will supply and service,
free of any charge to all Associates, work uniforms
to be worn while working in the plant. In addition,
personal lockers and shower facilities are also pro-
vided within the plant. The following are some rea-
sons why these uniforms must be worn at all times
while in the plant during working time.
Due to the very nature of our product, there can be
no exposed buttons, snaps, zippers, pins, belt buck-
les, etc. Honda is very proud of the reputation for
quality products and cannot jeopardize quality in
our operations.
Honda believes in providing excellent working con-
ditions for all Associates. We must all constantly
strive to maintain a clean and safe place to work.
We want everyone to be proud of our working en-
vironment when visitors, customers and dealers tour
our plant. We believe everyone being dressed in
white will project a favorable image of cleanliness
to anyone visiting our plant.
Matthew Holtzapfel, who was hired on December 5,
1979, stated that, during his orientation, Assistant Person-
nel Manager Leon Nicols informed the employees of this
rule and told them if they wore watches, rings, or large
belt buckles to try to be careful and not scratch any of
the motorcycles or parts for them.
Under this rule all of the Respondent's employees in-
cluding its officials, supervisory, and office personnel are
required to wear uniforms at work. These uniforms,
which are both furnished and kept laundered by the Re-
spondent, are white in color and consist of either over-
alls, smocks, or a combination of pants and jackets. On
the front portion of the uniforms the words "Honda of
America" are on the top left side and on the opposite
side of the front are the names of the persons wearing
them. All of the buttons except for those on the long
sleeve jacket which are exposed are covered by cloth so
that they are not exposed. White belts made of soft leath-
er with soft leather buckles are also furnished as part of
the uniform. However, they are normally covered by the
jackets worn over them.
According to Executive Vice President Yoshida, who
devised the rule, no adornments are allowed to be added
to the uniforms. The uniform rule also applies to the
cafeteria and breaktime.
Yoshida denied the rule applied to hats. Except for
employees being required to wear hard type hats to pro-
tect themselves from head injury in certain areas where
they work, the other employees are not required to wear
hats. However, for those employees who desire to wear
hats the Respondent furnishes them with hats which Yo-
shida stated they believe is the hat they should wear.
These hats are made of cloth and resemble baseball
type caps with a visor. They are green in color except
for a white colored design along each side and have the
name "Honda" printed across the front in white letters
approximately three-fourths of an inch in size.
Yoshida explained the reasons for having the rule are
to help create team work; show and maintain the Honda
quality image and cleanliness of the work area, use as a
company identity; and to prohibit wearing anything that
might cause damage to the products or parts. Further,
visitors to the plant such as distributors, customers, and
local people could observe employees wearing uniforms
which would help present a good quality image to them.
Other policies in effect at the plant which Yoshida
contends along with the uniform rule creates team work
and the Honda image consist of having a common cafe-
teria, one locker room for all employees, and no reserved
parking spaces for their vehicles.
Yoshida estimated Honda and its affiliated companies
employ approximately 40,000 employees worldwide in-
cluding about 23,000 employees in Japan. Some, but not
all of these employees are represented by labor organiza-
tions. While Yoshida initially testified every Honda plant
had this policy concerning the wearing of uniforms, he
acknowledged under cross-examination that he did not
have full knowledge of all of the Honda plants world-
wide or know whether uniforms were required to be
worn in all of them other than those plants located in the
United States and Japan about which he had knowledge.
Yoshida denied having any knowledge about whether
any scientific studies had been performed concerning the
effect on production of wearing these uniforms.
Employees, including those in production areas, do
wear with their uniforms such personal items as rings
and watches. However, Yoshida, who wears a watch
himself even in production areas, explained this depends
upon the type of work in which the employees are in-
volved. While they can wear them in areas where there
is no possibility of damaging the products or parts, he in-
dicated they would be prohibited from wearing them in
areas such as the fuel tank, painting, detailing, subassem-
bly of fuel tanks, and fairings. 4
The rule does not bar the wearing of pocket savers.
Employees in the plant wear pocket savers including
those with a union emblem. This union pocket saver is
plastic, white in color, and has a flap which folds over
the cloth of the pocket to protect it. The flap contains a
blue circular design approximately one-half inch in size
with the letters "UAW" in the center of the circle with
the name of the Union in small letters encircling the
"UAW" and under the circle on the flap are the words
"UAW Organizing Department." This union insignia and
the wording are visible to other persons.
Notwithstanding the rule does not bar the wearing of
pocket savers, Robert Mallow, who worked as a boiler
operator under Foreman Fryman, was informed by
Fryman in November 1979 to remove the union pocket
saver he was wearing in the left jacket pocket of his uni-
form, which he did. The only reason given by Fryman
4 I his is it painted plastic part ith a decal ion It
726
HONDA OF AMI RICA MFG.. INC
was that it vwould cause trouble.) Executive Vice Presi-
dent Yoshida at the hearing denied Fryman's action was
in accord with the uniform rule.
Yoshida also acknowledged that wearing the union
pocket savers by employees has not interfered with the
concept of team work or the cleanliness aspect of the
uniform policy. Upon being questioned about vwhether
the union pocket savers interfered with the Honda qual-
ity image, Yoshida's response was it depends upon the
individual but he personally felt they did not see any
kind of different insignia than Honda in their plant when
it was in operation. Yoshida acknowledged plant visitors
had not made any comments to him about employees
wearing union pocket savers.
Robert Mallow, who did not have direct contact with
the product, testified that for about a year he wore in his
uniform jacket pocket at work a plastic ballpoint pen and
a pencil. The pen had an attached metal flange to hold it
to the pocket and the pencil had a metal slipon type
pencil holder with a three-fourth-inch circular design at
the top for the same purpose. Both the pen and the
pencil holder had "UAAW" on them with the latter being
visible to other persons while it \was clipped on the
pocket. Mallow also observed other employees wearing
pens in their pockets with exposed metal flanges. Mat-
thew Holtzapfel also stated he wore a union ball point
pen in his pocket while at the plant without anything
being said to him.
Yoshida, upon being asked whether the rule would
prohibit the wearing of the metal pencil holder, stated
once the supervisors realized it might create damage to
the product those employees working in the areas who
came in contact with the final assembled products or
whether there was a possibility to scratch or damage the
product would be prohibited from wearing them while
those employees who did not have any contact with the
assembled product or parts w`ould not be prohibited, Yo-
shida also indicated the ballpoint pen with the metal
flange would be permitted to be worn where there was
no possibility to create scratches or to damage the prod-
ucts but added they thought this was a possibility where
employees handled the fuel tanks, fairings, and on the
final assembly line where those parts are handled. Yo-
shida denied his opposition to wearing them was because
of the union emblem but stated he \was opposed only be-
cause they were metal.
Employees who worked in the maintenance depart-
ment wore company issued utility belts with tool
pouches. This pouch is approximately 8 by 10 inches in
dimension, 1-1/2 inches thick, and is made of leather. It
has a leather loop in the front with exposed rounded
metal rivets on the front and back and a metal tape
holder is suspended from the pouch. The pouch is worn
suspended from the leather belt which has a metal buckle
and there is also a metal tape holder suspended from the
belt.
Robert Mallow stated while working in the mainte-
nance department he wore a tool pouch containing ex-
posed metal tools including pipe wrenches, tape meas-
s This finding is hased on the undisputed teslimons of Mallow which I
credit
ures, screwdrivers, small ballpen hammer, and Allen
wrenches. Mallow acknowledged while wearing the util-
ity belt and pouch he did not have contact with the
products although he was around the assembly area and
the paint department area.
According to Yoshida the maintenance employees
wear these utility belts and pouches in production areas
as long as they do not cause any damage or scratches to
the products.
Although Matthew Holtzapfel and Robert Mallow
both testified they previously wore their own personal
belts with exposed metal buckles at work they acknowl-
edged the jacket normally covered the belt area. Both
denied they \were ever told they had to wear a company
belt.
C. The Ilat Removal Incident
Matthew Holtzapfel was employed by the Respondent
as a boiler operator and worked under the supervision of
Foreman Fryman.
His union activities included attending meetings with
the Union's representatives, obtaining authorization cards
for employees to sign as well as union literature which
he read or gave to other employees to read. Holtzapfel
also obtained a hat from the Union's representatives.
This hat (herein referred to as the UAW hat) is similar in
design to the Honda hat. It is a baseball type cap with a
visor. The side and back portions are made of a blue
knitted material and in the front above the blue visor
there is a triangular shaped piece of white cloth with a
blue union emblem. The emblem is circular shaped, ap-
proximately 2-3/4 inches in size, and contains the letters
"UAW" which are a little over one-half inch in height in
the center of the circle with the name of the Union
printed in small letters in a circle around the "UAW."
On May 16 Holtzapfel, who had never worn a Honda
hat, wore the UAW hat to work with his uniform con-
sisting of the company pants and jacket. After punching
in he reported to the maintenance department where he
was assigned at the time and attended a meeting held by
Foreman Fryman during which he wore the UAW hat.
Upon leaving to go to his work station Fryman request-
ed him to take the UAW hat off. After questioning
Fryman about whether he knew that under the law he
was allowed to wear the hat, Fryman informed him he
did but again asked him to take the hat off. Holtzapfel
then removed the hat and put it in the storage locker in
the maintenance department. During the lunch period6
that day Holtzapfel got the UAW hat and proceeded to-
wards the cafeteria. En route to the cafeteria Manufac-
turing Manager Muth observed him with the UAW hat
as he was entering the employee locker room to get his
lunch. Upon his exiting the locker room with his lunch
to go into the cafeteria Muth said, "Not here, Matt," re-
ferring to the UAW hat. He then told Muth he knew of
other employees in the plant who had hats and were
,wearing them 7 and he felt the Union was coming into
r Holizapfel. while working as a maintenance employee. was not paid
for the lunch period.
7 There was no evidence ito show employiees were allowed to wear
hats in the plant o(ther than HIrond.a hats
727
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the plant. Muth then asked him to take the hat off. After
explaining to Muth that under the law he was allowed to
wear a hat with a union emblem, Muth informed him
that he knew of the laws but wanted him to take the hat
off. He again explained the law to Muth; whereupon,
Muth repeated he still wanted the hat off. Upon asking
Muth if he was telling him to take the hat off, Muth re-
plied, "Yes." Holtzapfel then removed the hat and put it
in his locker and has not worn it since.
Later that same day Manufacturing Manager Muth
paged Holtzapfel to come to the office, which he did,
where Muth and Personnel Associate Relations Manager
Kinzer were present. Kinzer told Holtzapfel they wanted
him to know they were not infringing on his rights, re-
ferring to Muth having told him to take the hat off.
Holtzapfel, who had a booklet with him containing laws
about things to do and not to do in a union organizing
campaign, read them a statement from it about employ-
ees being allowed to wear hats, buttons, badges, and dif-
ferent union paraphernalia. However, neither Muth nor
Kinzer responded. Holtzapfel then told Kinzer that he
basically judged himself not to be a prounion person but
mentioned they had some grievances and problems
which had been brought to management without any-
thing being done and he felt if some things had not
changed a union was evident in the plant. During the
conversation Muth mentioned a welder had been wear-
ing another kind of hat in the plant which he had also
taken from the welder and had given him a Honda hat.
They told Holtzapfel if he wanted to wear a hat they
would furnish him a Honda hat.8
Executive Vice President Yoshida, who stated he
thought wearing a UAW hat in the plant as opposed to
the Honda hat would deteriorate the team work concept,
explained if an employee wore a hat other than the
Honda hat they believed it did not create a good image
of the Honda team. However, he acknowledged he did
not think any scientific studies had been performed to
determine what effect it would have on team work if
employees wore UAW hats as opposed to Honda hats.
Upon being questioned about whether it would be per-
missible for an employee to wear a UAW hat in the cafe-
teria, Yoshida's response was they wanted to be consist-
ent in the plant and they would ask the employee not to
wear any hats other than the Honda hat in the cafeteria.
Although he said they realized the rule said employees
had the right to wear any kind of thing during their
lunch period, Yoshida acknowledged they might ask em-
ployees to take off their hats in the cafeteria if they were
not Honda hats and they would guide employees to wear
Honda hats. Yoshida also stated employees on break pe-
riods, which mainly take place on the production floor,
would also be asked to wear a Honda hat if they wanted
to wear a hat and if they wore a UAW hat they would
be asked to remove it.
8 Holtzapfel's conversations with Foreman Fryman, Manufacturing
Manager Muth, and Personnel Associate Relations Manager Kinzer on
May 16 are based on the undisputed testimony of Holtzapfel which I
credit.
D. Analysis and Conclusions
Both the General Counsel and the Union contended
that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(l) of the Act
by maintaining an unlawful rule concerning the wearing
of uniforms and unlawfully enforced said rule9 selective-
ly and disparately against an employee for wearing a
UAW hat during working and nonworking time. The
Respondent denies such contentions and asserts its uni-
form policy is lawful. Those grounds argued in its brief
in support of its lawfulness for the rule are the policy
and has been in effect since the Respondent began hiring
employees; it was adopted for a nondiscriminatory pur-
pose; no history of union animus; the policy does not
prohibit the display of union insignia, but only regulates
the manner of such display; and the existence of special
circumstances for the policy. The special circumstances
referred to are defined as "the maintenance and integrity
of its general labor relations and management philos-
ophy."
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act prohibits an employer from
interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in
the exercise of their rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the
Act.
Upon examining the uniform rule in issue here, which
the findings, supra, establish has been in effect at the
plant since the Respondent began hiring employees in
April 1979, it requires employees to wear uniforms at all
times while in the plant during working time and prohib-
its their having on the uniforms exposed items, such as,
but not limited to, buttons, snaps, zippers, pins, and belt
buckles. Further, under the rule as interpreted by Execu-
tive Vice President Yoshida, who formulated it, no
adornments are allowed to be added to the uniforms.
The term "working time" in certain plant rules as the
Board has held is reasonably susceptible to an interpreta-
tion by employees that they are prohibited from engag-
ing in protected activity during periods of the workday
when they are not working, such as their meal and break
periods. T.R. W. Bearings Division, a Division of TR. W.,
Inc., 257 NLRB 442 (1981). Not only is the rule in the
instant case couched in terms of "working time" but Ex-
ecutive Vice President Yoshida acknowledged it applies
to employees' lunch and break periods.
Such rule on its face, contrary to the Respondent's po-
sition, makes no allowances for and by its terms would in
effect prohibit the wearing by employees of union but-
tons and insignia on their uniforms.
While the rule itself lists as reasons for its justification
the protection of the quality of its products; maintaining
a clean and safe place to work; and projecting a favora-
ble image of cleanliness to visitors at the plant, the find-
ings supra, not only fail to support but tend to refute the
validity of such reasons contained within the rule. For
example, all of the employees do not either work direct-
ly with or have contact with the products or parts where
they could scratch or cause damage to them. Employees
in the plant while in uniform wear watches and rings. On
9 Since this rule was promulgated more than 6 months preceding the
filing of the charge in the instant case, Sec 10(b) of the Act precludes
finding the promulgation of the rule to also be unlawful as alleged.
728
HONDA OF AMERICA MFG., INC.
their uniforms they wear such items as pocket savers
containing visible emblems including the Union's
emblem, ballpoint pens and pencils with slipon type
pencil holders, both of which contain exposed metal
flanges and the letters "UAW" on them with the
"UAW" on the pencil holder being visible to other per-
sons. Maintenance employees also wear company issued
utility belts with metal buckles and tool pouches contain-
ing exposed metal rivets on the pouches and in which ex-
posed metal tools and tape holders are carried. Admit-
tedly, no scientific studies have been conducted concern-
ing the effect of the rule on production. Further, the
plant employees themselves have no direct dealings with
customers or the public. The only contact they would
have is when visitors to the plant might happen to ob-
serve them there.
Yoshida, who claimed an additional reason for the rule
was to help create team work, acknowledged that em-
ployees by wearing pocket savers had not interfered
with the team work concept or the cleanliness aspect of
the rule and that he was not aware of any comments
being made by the visitors to the plant who may have
observed employees wearing them.
The right of employees to wear union insignia at work
is a protected activity under the Act. Republic Aviation
Corporation v. N.L.R.B., 324 U.S. 793 (1945). Absent
"special circumstances" a rule prohibiting employees
from wearing union insignia at work violates Section
8(a)(1) of the Act. Employees' contacts with customers
has been held not to constitute such "special circum-
stances" as to deprive employees of that right. Floridan
Hotel of Tampa, Inc., 137 NLRB 1484 (1962), enfd. as
modified 318 F.2d 545 (5th Cir. 1963). Nor does the fact
that the rule relates to wearing of uniforms and is pro-
mulgated prior to the advent of employees' union activi-
ties afford a defense. Consolidated Casinos Corp. Sahara
Division, 164 NLRB 950 (1967).
Insofar as the Respondent urges the existence of a spe-
cial circumstance, i.e., the maintenance and integrity of
its general labor relations and management philosophy to
justify its rule, it presented no probative evidence to
show maintenance of the rule is essential to those pur-
poses. Rather, the absence as here of any adverse reac-
tion to Respondent's labor relations and management
philosophy by allowing employees as herein found to
wear on their uniforms pocket savers, ballpoint pens, and
pencils with slipon type pencil holders containing em-
blems, including the Union's emblem, as well as exposed
metal flanges, detracts from the validity of such asser-
tion. Accordingly, I find the Respondent has failed to es-
tablish the existence of a "special circumstance" suffi-
cient to legally justify its broad rule.
Based on the foregoing evidence and for the reasons
indicated and having rejected the Respondent's defense,
I am persuaded and find the Respondent's broad uniform
rule would in effect deprive its employees of their lawful
right to wear union buttons and insignia, and the Re-
spondent by maintaining such rule has thereby violated
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
The remaining issue to be resolved is whether the uni-
form rule was selectively and disparately enforced
against an employee for wearing a UAW hat. The evi-
dence, supra, establishes on May 16, Matthew Holtzapfel
both while working and during his lunchbreak was di-
rected by Foreman Fryman and Manufacturing Manager
Muth over his objections to remove the UAW hat he
was wearing which he did. He was then informed by
Personnel Associate Relations Manager Kinzer they
were not infringing on his rights by having him remove
the UAW hat but was told by Kinzer and Muth if he
wanted to wear a hat they would furnish him with a
Honda hat.
Employees are not required under the uniform rule to
wear hats. Executive Vice President Yoshida's opinion
that the wearing of the UAW hat as opposed to a Honda
hat by an employee would deteriorate the team work
concept was not supported by any probative evidence
and he acknowledged that he was not aware of any sci-
entific studies conducted to determine such effect.
Since employees, notwithstanding the uniform rule,
were permitted to wear certain items containing emblems
on their uniforms as herein found and the rule did not
require employees to wear hats, I am persuaded and find
that the Respondent selectively and disparately enforced
its uniform rule against Holtzapfel by requiring him to
remove his UAW hat, which was similar in design to the
Honda hat and was not shown to be provocative or of-
fensive, and Respondent thereby violated Section 8(a)(l)
of the Act.
IV. HE t FFFCT OF THE UNFIAIR LABOR PRACTICES
UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent set forth in section
111, above, found to constitute unfair labor practices oc-
curing in connection with the operations of the Respond-
ent, described in section I, above, have a close, intimate,
and substantial relationship to trade, traffic, and com-
merce among the several States and tend to lead to labor
disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the
free flow thereof.
CONCiUSIONS OF LAW
1. Honda of America Mfg., Inc., is an employer en-
gaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6)
and (7) of the Act.
2. International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace
and Agricultural Implement Workers of America
(UAW), is a labor organization within the meaning of
Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By maintaining a rule concerning the wearing of
uniforms which would prohibit its employees from wear-
ing union buttons and insignia; and by selectively and
disparately enforcing its uniform rule against an employ-
ee by requiring said employee not to wear a UAW hat,
the Respondent has interfered with, restrained, and co-
erced its employees in the exercise of their rights guaran-
teed them by Section 7 of the Act and has engaged in
unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section
8(a)(1) of the Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
729
DECISIONS OF NAIIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Tilm RMi.i)DY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in cer-
tain unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section
8(a)(1) of the Act, I shall recommend that it cease and
desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action to ef-
fectuate the policies of the Act.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of
law, and the entire record and pursuant to Section 10(c)
of the Act, I hereby issue the following recommended:
ORDER"'
The Respondent, Honda of America Mfg., Inc.,
Marysville, Ohio, its officers, agents, successors, and as-
signs, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Maintaining a rule which would prohibit its em-
ployees from wearing union buttons and insignia.
(b) Selectively and disparately enforcing its uniform
rule against employees by requiring them not to wear
UAW hats.
(c) In any like or related manner interfering 'Wilth, re-
straining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of
their right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist the
International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and
Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW), or
any other labor organization, to bargain collectively
through representatives of their own choosing, and to
engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collec-
tive bargaining or other mutual aid or protection or to
refrain from any or all such activities, except to the
extent that such rights may be affected by an agreement
requiring membership in a labor organization as a condi-
tion of employment as authorized in Section 8(a)(
3) of
the National Labor Relations Act, as amended.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to
effectuate the policies of the Act:
Post at its Marysville, Ohio, facility copies of the at-
tached notice marked "Appendix.
" ' Copies of said
o In the evenlt no exu.cepiioi' are filed a., pr vided h5 Sec 10)2 4 1'
Ihe Rules aid Regulations of the Nationall I.ahor Relaition, ioardi Ihi
findings. colclusions. anid recommended Order herci Ihill.ldl as pi tied
in Sec. 102.48 of the Rules anid Regulalions, be adopted hy the ,oard illand
bchome its findinlgs, concllCsions, and Order, and all bjeclio I thereto
shall he deemed waived d for all purposes
I In the event that tIhis Order is enfirccd hy a Judgmentl of al t i; ied
Slates Courl of Appeals, the %words in the notice reading 'lostled h,
Order of the Nalilial I.abor Rclalionil BIoard" shall read "t'oICd PI'ullu
ant to a Judgment of the UIniled Stales Court of Appeals F ll nrcilg ani
Order of the National I.abor Relatioln Board "
notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for
Region 8, after being duly signed by Respondent's au-
thorized representative, shall be posted by the Respond-
ent 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 the Respondent to insure that said notices are not al-
tered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(b) Notify the Regional Director for Region 8, in writ-
ing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what
steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
IT Is I URK lft R ORI)I RI I) that the amended complaint
he, and it hereby is, dismissed insofar as it alleges unfair
labor practices not specifically found herein.
APPENDIX
NotI i To Etl'il. o'riTs
POS t I I)iY ORI)ER 01 FlilE
NATIONAI L tOR RI. AI IONS BOARDI)
An Agency of the United States Government
Wli Wii.i NOtC maintain a rule which would pro-
hibit our employees from \wearing union buttons
and insignia.
WI: Wll.l NOI selectively and disparately enforce
our uniform rule against our employees by requiring
them not to wear UAW hats.
WVI L wii.. NO I in any like or related manner in-
terfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in
the exercise of their right to self-organization, to
form, join, or assist the International Union, United
Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement
Workers of America (UAW), or any other labor or-
ganizationi, to bargain collectively through repre-
sentatives of their own choosing, and to engage in
concerted activities for the purpose of collective
bargaining or other mutual aid or protection or to
refrain from any or all such activities except to the
extent that such rights may be affected by an agree-
ment requiring membership in a labor organization
as a condition or employment as authorized in Sec-
tion 8(a)(3) of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended.
HONI)A o AMi RI( AX Mi (., INC
730