W. F. Hall Printing Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 18, 1980

250 N.L.R.B. 803 (N.L.R.B. 1980)

W 1F IIA I P'RINTIN(; C()NII'AN
W. F. Hall Printing Company and Graphic Arts In-
ternational Union, AFl.-CIO, CLC. Case 26-
CA-8096
July 18, 1980
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS JENKINS, PENELLO, AND
TRUESDALE
Upon a charge filed on October 15, 1979, by
Graphic Arts International Union, AFL-CIO,
CLC, herein called the Union, and duly served on
W. F. Hall Printing Company, herein called Re-
spondent, the General Counsel of the National
Labor Relations Board, by the Regional Director
for Region 26, issued a complaint and notice of
hearing on November 16, 1979, against Respond-
ent, alleging that Respondent has engaged in and
was engaging in unfair labor practices affecting
commerce within the meaning of Section 8(a)(l)
and Section 2(6) and (7) of the National Labor Re-
lations Act, as amended. Copies of the charge,
complaint, and notice of hearing before an adminis-
trative law judge were duly served on the parties
to this proceeding.
With respect to the unfair labor practices, the
complaint alleges that on or about September 25,
1979, Respondent threatened and coerced its em-
ployees, in violation of Section 8(a)(l) of the Act,
by disseminating to its employees a letter in which
Respondent warned them that selection of a union
to represent them could place an unreasonable risk
on their job security and requested them to inform
supervisors about fellow employees who persistent-
ly solicit them to sign union cards.
On April 3, 1980, counsel for the General Coun-
sel filed directly with the Board a Motion to Trans-
fer Case to Board and for Summary Judgment.
Subsequently, on April 9, 1980, the Board issued an
order transferring the proceeding to the Board and
a Notice To Show Cause why the General Coun-
sel's Motion for Summary Judgment should not be
granted. Respondent filed a statement in opposition
to the General Counsel's Motion for Summary
Judgment and in response to the Board's Notice To
Show Cause.' The Union filed a brief.
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.
' Respondent also filed a motion for oral argument The motion is
hereby denied, a, the record and briefs adequately present the issues and
the positions of the parties In its respon.e to the Notice To Show Cause.
Respondent appended three affida.its in support of its contention These
affidavits raise not isues of m.rllial fact sv arranling a heiaring
250 NLRB No. 122
Upon the entire record in this proceeding, the
Board makes the following:
Ruling on the Motion for Summary Judgment
In its answer to the complaint, Respondent
admits that on or about September 25, 1979,
Charles P. McDonald, Respondent's plant man-
ager, mailed a letter to employees. By stipulation of
the parties entered into on March 28, 1980, Re-
spondent and the General Counsel stipulated that a
certain exhibit is a true and exact copy of the Sep-
tember 25, 1979, letter, and that the signature
thereon is that of Chuck McDonald.
The letter states, in pertinent part:
If anyone should come to you and ask you
to sign a union authorization card, I am asking
you to refuse to sign it. If any employee
should harass you or try to pressure you into
signing a card, feel free to report it to your
Foreman and they will take immediate action
to stop the threats and harrassment.
The General Counsel alleges that the above-quoted
language violates Section 8(a)(l) of the Act, as this
statement "has the potential dual effect of encour-
aging employees to report to Respondent the iden-
tity of union card solicitors who in any way ap-
proach employees in a manner subjectively offen-
sive to the solicited employees, and of correspond-
ingly discouraging card solicitors in their protected
organizational activities." The General Counsel fur-
ther contends that its Motion for Summary Judg-
ment should be granted, as there are no material
facts at issue that require a hearing before an ad-
ministrative law judge.
Respondent opposes the General Counsel's
Motion for Summary Judgment. Respondent
admits each of the material factual allegations of
the complaint, but denies that the above-quoted
language was intended to, or would have the effect
of, interfering with, restraining, or coercing em-
ployees in the exercise of their Section 7 rights.
Respondent contends that this case is distinguish-
able from those cases in which the Board has found
unlawful broadly worded instructions to employees
to report certain authorization card solicitors. 2 Re-
spondent contends that its statement does not affir-
matively attempt to persuade employees to identify
union sympathizers, because Respondent merely
advised employees that it would protect employes
who wished to report certain types of "threats or
harassment"-conduct which is not protected by
the Act. Respondent contends that, unlike in the
cases relied on by the General Counsel, it did not
z Colony Printing and Labeling. Inc . 249 NIRB No 2. (1980): J. H.
Bh'kt & (i', Inc. 247 NI RB No 41. (1480)). and cases cited in fn 1
theriet
I)F CISI()NS ()0 NAI I()NAL LAB()R RElIATIONS BO)ARD
require its employees to report anything to manage-
ment.
The above-quoted language is substantially the
same as that which we have recently found to be
unlawful in Colony Printing and Labeling, Inc. 3 We
find, as alleged by the General Counsel, that the
language in question "has the potential dual effect
of encouraging employees to report to Respondent
the identity of union card solicitors who in any
way approach employees in a manner subjectively
offensive to the solicited employees, and of corre-
spondingly discouraging card solicitors in their
protected organizational activities."4 We find,
therefore, that Respondent has violated Section
8(a)(1) of the Act as alleged in the complaint. Ac-
cordingly, we grant the General Counsel's Motion
for Summary Judgment.
On the basis of the entire record, the Board
makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT
Respondent is, and has been at all times material
herein, a corporation with its principal office and
place of business in Dresden, Tennessee, where it is
engaged in the business of printing books. During
the 12-month period to the issuance of the com-
plaint herein, which is a representative period, Re-
spondent, in the course and conduct of its business
operations, sold and shipped from its Dresden,
Tennessee, facility products, goods, and materials
valued in excess of $50,000 directly to points out-
side the State of Tennessee, and purchased and re-
ceived at said facility products, goods, and materi-
als valued in excess of $50,000 directly from points
outside the State of Tennessee.
We find, on the basis of the foregoing, that Re-
spondent is, and has been at all times material
herein, an employer engaged in commerce within
the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act, and
that it will effectuate the policies of the Act to
assert jurisdiction herein.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Graphic Arts International Union, AFL-CIO,
CLC, is, and has been at all times material herein, a
labor organization within the meaning of Section
2(5) of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
As set forth above, we find that, by sending to
employees a letter which had "potential dual effect
of encouraging employees to report to Respondent
a Supra. fij. 3
' Bhlok. vupra. fn 3.
the identity of union card solicitors who in any
way approach employees in a manner subjectively
offensive to the solicited employees, and of corre-
spondingly discouraging card solicitors in their
protected organizational activities," Respondent
violated Section 8(a)(l) of the Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR
PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of Respondent set forth above, oc-
curring in connection with its operations described
in section I, above, have a close, intimate, and sub-
stantial relationship to trade, traffic, and commerce
among the several States and tend to lead to labor
disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and
the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in
and is engaging in unfair labor practices with the
meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, we shall
order that it cease and desist therefrom, and take
certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the
policies of the Act.
The Board, upon the basis of the foregoing facts
and the entire record, makes the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. W. F. Hall Printing Company is an employer
engaged in commerce within the meaning of Sec-
tion 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. Graphic Arts International Union, AFL-CIO,
CLC, is a labor organization within the meaning of
Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. Respondent has interfered with, restrained,
and coerced its employees in the exercise of their
rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, and
thereby has violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by
encouraging employees to inform Respondent of
the identity of union card solicitors who in any
way approach employees in a manner subjectively
offensive to the solicited employees, and by corre-
spondingly discouraging card solicitors in their
protected organizational activities.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practice is an unfair
labor practices affecting commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Re-
lations Board hereby orders that the Respondent,
W. F. Hall Printing Company, Dresden, Tennessee,
its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
804
W F HALL PRINTINGi COMPANY
(a) Encouraging employees to inform Respond-
ent of the identity of union card solicitors who in
any way approach employees in a manner subjec-
tively offensive to the solicited employee, and by
correspondingly discouraging card solicitors in
their protected organizational activities.
(b) In any like or related manner interfering
with, restraining, or coercing employees in the ex-
ercise of the rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of
the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which
the Board finds will effectuate the policies of the
Act:
(a) Post at its facility at Dresden, Tennessee,
copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." s
Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the
Regional Director for Region 26, after being duly
signed by Respondent's representative, shall be
posted by Respondent 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
s In the event that this Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United
States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted b)
Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursu-
ant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an
Order of the National Labor Relations Board "
posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Re-
spondent to insure that said notices are not altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material.
(b) Notify the Regional Director for Region 26,
in writing, within 20 days from the date of this
Order, what steps have been taken to comply here-
with.
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO E.1PI OY tES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR REI A IONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WEI Wl.L NOT encourage employees to
inform us of the identity of union card solici-
tors who in any way approach them in a
manner subjectively offensive to the solicited
employee, and by correspondingly discourag-
ing card solicitors in their protected organiza-
tional activities.
WE Will. NOT in any like or related manner
interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employ-
ees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed
them by Section 7 of the Act.
W. F. HALL. PRINTING COMPANY
8()5