United Aircraft Corp.

UNITED AIRCRAFT CORP., PRATT & WHITNEY DIVISION 39 United Aircraft Corporation, Pratt and Whitney Aircraft Divi- sion and International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, UAW, AFL- CIO, and its Local #1234. Case No. 1-C.4-3081. October 10, 1962 DECISION AND ORDER On October 7, 1960, Trial Examiner Paul Bisgyer issued his Inter- mediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Inter- mediate Report. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a supporting brief. The Charging Parties filed exceptions. The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Inter- mediate Report, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions,' and recommen- dations of the Trial Examiner, except as modified below .2 ORDER Upon the entire record in the case, and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the Respondent, United Aircraft Corporation, Pratt and Whitney Aircraft Division, North Haven, Connecticut, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from promulgating or enforcing any rule or order prohibiting employees, when they are on nonworking time and in nonworking areas of the plant, from distributing any leaflets, hand- bills, circulars, or other literature on behalf of International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, UAW, AFL-CIO, and its Local #1234, or from in any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing em- ployees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to bargain 1 In reaching this decision the Board has not considered the evidence relating to the leaflets distributed while Greenberg was administrator of the Union to be relevant. Accord- ingly, we express no opinion on the question of whether the Greenberg leaflets contained scurrilous material, or whether, if they did, Respondent could restrict their distribution by employees on its property. 2 Notwithstanding their continuous objection to the Board 's modification of the so-called nonworking time rule, as expressed in their dissent in Stoddard-Quark Manufacturing Co., 138 NLRB 615 ( September 18, 1962 ), Members Fanning and Brown adhere to the majority 's decision in that case for the purpose of this decision 139 NLRB No. 12. 40 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD collectively through representatives of their own choosing, or 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. 2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will effectuate the policies of the Act. (a) Notify the above-named Union, in writing, that it has rescinded its order prohibiting employees, when they are on nonworking time and in nonworking areas of the plant, from distributing on their own time on company property any leaflets, handbills, circulars, or other literature on behalf of the above-named Union and that the employees may resume such distribution. (b) Post at its plant in North Haven, Connecticut, copies of the notice attached hereto marked "Appendix." 3 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the First Region, shall, after being signed by Respondent's authorized representative, be posted by the Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for a period of 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to its employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Re- spondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (c) Notify the Regional Director for the First Region, in writing, within 10 days from the date of receipt of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith. MEMBERS RODGERS and LEEDOM took no part in the consideration of the above Decision and Order. 8 In the event that this Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals, there shall be substituted for the words "Pursuant to a Decision and Order" the words "Pursuant to a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals, Enforcing an Order." APPENDIX NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES Pursuant to a Decision and Order 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: WE WILL NOT promulgate or enforce any rule or order pro- hibiting our employees, when they are on nonworking time and in nonworking areas of the plant, from distributing any leaflets, handbills, circulars, or other literature on behalf of International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, UAW, AFL-CIO, and its Local #1234, or in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, UNITED AIRCRAFT CORP., PRATT & WHITNEY DIVISION 41 to form labor organizations , to join or assist any labor organiza- tion, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the pur- pose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any or all such activities. UNITED AIRCRAFT CORPORATION, PRATT AND WHITNEY AIRCRAFT DIVISION, Employer. Dated---------------- By------------------------------------- (Representative ) (Title) This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof, and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. Employees may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, 24 School Street, Boston 8, Massachusetts, Telephone Number, Lafayette 3-3100, if they have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions. INTERMEDIATE REPORT AND RECOMMENDED ORDER STATEMENT OF THE CASE This proceeding, with all the parties represented, was heard before Trial Examiner Paul Bisgyer in New Haven, Connecticut, on May 18 , 19, and 20 , 1960, on complaint of the General Counsel and amended answer of United Aircraft Corporation, Pratt and Whitney Aircraft Division , herein called the Respondent. The complaint alleges that the Respondent violated Section 8(a) (1) of the Act in that since September 16, 1959, it has prevented its employees from distributing literature of International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, UAW, AFL-CIO, and its Local # 1234, herein jointly called the Union , on or around the parking lots of the Respondent's North Haven, Connecticut, plant. In its answer, as amended at the hearing, the Respondent admits the facts alleged in the complaint but denies that it thereby committed any unfair labor practices . At the conclusion of the hearing, the parties presented oral argument. Thereafter, the parties filed briefs which have been carefully considered. Upon the entire record, and from my observation of the witnesses, I make the following: FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT The Respondent, a Delaware corporation with its principal office and place of business at East Hartford, Connecticut, maintains one of its plants in North Haven, Connecticut, which is here involved, where it is engaged in the manufacture, sale, and distribution of aircraft engines and related products . In the course of its business, the Respondent annually ships from its said plant finished products valued in excess of $50,000 to points outside this State. I find that the Respondent is 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. U. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED The parties agreed, and I find, that International Union , United Automobile, Air- craft and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, UAW, AFL-CIO, and its Local #1234, are labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Facts Since the International's certification by the National Labor Relations Board in 1953, Local # 1234 has maintained contractual relations with the Respondent as the collective-bargaining representative of the Respondent's production and maintenance employees at its North Haven plant . In effect at all times material herein was a 2- 42 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD year contract due to expire on May 15, 1960, unless automatically renewed. At the time of the hearing, there were approximately 4,100 to 4,200 employees in the bar- gaining unit covered by this contract. Before 1956 the Union distributed its literature among employees at places off the Respondent's premises. In that year the Respondent granted the Union permission for employees to distribute union literature on their own time on the Respondent's property at the two tunnel entrances to the plant which employees customarily use to get to work after parking their cars on adjacent company parking lots. Thereafter, before reporting for work, employees distributed union handbills and leaflets at the designated places until September 16, 1959,1 when the Respondent withdrew its per- mission and barred further use of its premises for such purposes following the events described below. In the latter part of June, shortly after Warren Chamberlain, an employee, became president of Local #1234, Wilfred E. Hall, personnel supervisor of the North Haven plant, summoned Chamberlain to his office to discuss the prospect of improving relations between the Union and the Respondent, which had been deteriorating dur- ing the administration of Chamberlain's predecessors in office. Among other things, Hall suggested, in substance, the advisability of bringing the Union's complaints and problems to him for discussion, or including them in an agenda letter for manage- ment's consideration under the contractual grievance procedure, before airing them in leaflets. He also expressed the Respondent's resentment of leaflets of the type issued and distributed by Greenberg, an International representative who administered the local's affairs before Chamberlain's election. These leaflets, Hall stated, vilified the Respondent's officials and contained untruths and unfounded accusations. The Respondent introduced in evidence two such leaflets which characterized its officials as 'SFascist," "Communist," and "Storm Trooper." 2 During the course of their conversation, Chamberlain mentioned to Hall the Union's dissatisfaction with certain cafeteria conditions,3 the delay employees encountered when leaving the parking lots for home at the close of their shift, and the poor ventilation in the plant. Beginning about June 23 until September 16 Chamberlain, as president of Local #1234, prepared a series of leaflets which employees distributed at the tunnel entrances to the plant, as it was then customary to do.4 These leaflets criticized the food served in the cafeterias, the high prices charged, and the use of unclean trays; voiced unremedied complaints about poor ventilation in the plant, the slow move- ment of employee traffic out of the plant, and other working conditions; objected to Respondent's manner of handling grievances; urged members to vote in elections for committeemen and stewards; appealed to nonmembers to join the Union; 5 and pointed out that an increase in membership was essential in order to secure a better collective-bargaining contract than that then in effect. It is clear, however, that these leaflets did not contain the objectionable characterizations of company officials which appeared in the earlier Greenberg leaflets mentioned above. Personnel Supervisor Hall testified, without contradiction, that at a grievance meet- ing with the Union held on July 10 his superior, Personnel Manager Morse, criticized the leaflets the Union was distributing and specifically singled out the objectionable matter in the leaflets previously issued by International Representative Greenberg. Hall further testified that Morse reminded the Union's committeemen that the Union was enjoying only a privilege, not a right, to distribute its literature on com- pany property and that this privilege could be lost. 1 Unless otherwise indicated, all events occurred in 1959 2 These leaflets were distributed on or about May 12 and 27. The first one charged the Respondent's supervisors with unlawfully inducing employees to resign from the Union. The second one sharply criticized the Respondent's handling of grievances and treatment of employees. 3 The two cafeterias in the plant, as well as those in the Respondent's other plants, are operated by a licensee. C. R Brown Cafeterias, pursuant to the terms of an agreement with the Respondent. Among other provisions, the licensee is required to furnish meals for the Respondent's officers and employees "at the lowest cost consistent with the best quality of food, prepared and served under bygienic conditions." ' It appears that during this period, the Union also distributed three other leaflets which were not drafted by Chamberlain. These leaflets announced the pending termination of the International's administration of the local's affairs ; urged members to select compe- tent stewards and committeemen to represent them; announced a forthcoming grievance meeting with the Respondent ; and complained about the failure of Respondent's Vice President Burke to meet with the Union to discuss employee vacations 6It appears that, out of an estimated 3,500 to 3,800 employees in the bargaining unit in September, about 1,700 to 1,800 were members of Local #1234. UNITED AIRCRAFT CORP., PRATT & WHITNEY DIVISION 43 Notwithstanding Morse's admonition, the Union continued with its employee distribution of the leaflets prepared by Chamberlain. There is no question that the Respondent was irked by the content of these leaflets. According to Chamberlain's undisputed testimony, which I credit, Assistant Personnel Manager Corper , at another grievance meeting held about the beginning of September, berated Chamberlain for telling the Respondent how to run its cafeterias and added that the cafeterias were operated for the convenience of employees and that their operation might be discontinued. During the first part of September and for about a period of 2 weeks, employees scheduled to take their lunch at 11 and 11 : 15 a.m. refused to patronize the cafeterias. Instead, they brought their own lunch and booed anyone who approached the food line. Although Hall testified that Chamberlain 's leaflets incited this conduct, no complaint was made to Chamberlain to correct the situation. In any event, this booing ceased as soon as the Respondent threatened to take disciplinary action. On September 16, Hall called Chamberlain to his office and advised him that the Union had abused .the privilege of distributing union literature on company property and that the Respondent was therefore withdrawing its permission. Although Hall alluded to a so-called Celentano incident 6 and a littering problem ,7 it is clear, as the Respondent admits in its brief , that the sole reason for the Respondent 's action was its disapproval of the contents of the leaflets that were being distributed. As Hall testified, he informed Chamberlain on this occasion, as he had done previously, that the Respondent objected to the "distribution of flyers which were designed to incite employees and to tell them what a lousy place Pratt Whitney was to work"; that the Respondent did not intend to make its "front porch, so to speak, available for the distribution of literature" which had such a purpose; and that Chamberlain's flyers were appreciably no different from Greenberg's, "no matter how subtly Chamberlain might have attempted to write" them. Since the Respondent's ban on employee distribution of union literature on com- pany property, employees have been distributing the Union's leaflets on a public highway at the foot of the ramp leading to the Respondent's parking lots as employees drive their automobiles on to the ramp to go to work. The General Counsel and the Union view these conditions as very hazardous whereas the Respondent asserts the contrary. For the purpose of showing the type of information the Union continues to circulate among employees after the imposition of its ban, the Respondent put in evidence three leaflets distributed off the Company's premises . Like the Union's other handbills, these leaflets contain organizational matter; are highly critical of the Respondent's failure to improve cafeteria conditions , as well as other conditions of employment; and refer to "The Work Order Scandal" 'and the "Ghost of Maloney" 8 as subjects to be discussed in future leaflets . However, the promised leaflets were never issued. B. Contentions of the parties The Respondent denies that it violated the Act by prohibiting its employees to distribute union literature on their own time on company porperty. It contends that he Union's fliers "encouraged and contributed" to the disturbance in the cafeteria" and that therefore it was justified in imposing the ban in order to maintain produc- tion, order, and discipline in the plant. It further argues that it is not obligated to permit the Union to use its property for the purpose of circulating leaflets which vilify the Respondent and contain irresponsible and deliberately misleading state- ments, and in which the Union airs its complaints without first discussing them with the Respondent or submitting them to the contractual grievance procedure, as contemplated by the Act. Finally, the Respondent urges that the Union has adequate alternative means for distributing its literature off the Respondent's premises at the ramp entrance to the plant and that therefore the Respondent is not required to furnish the Union company facilities for such purpose. The General Counsel and the Union, on the other hand, contend, in substance, that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act for the reasons that it failed to show special circumstances justifying the ban on employee distribution on 8 This incident occurred in December 1958 when Celentano , an employee and then the president of Local #1234, allegedly used improper language while handing out leaflets. As a result, Celentano was permanently barred from distributing leaflets on company property. 9 Hall admitted that no complaint was registered with Chamberlain about this so-called litter problem so that Chamberlain could take steps to correct it 8 The evidence indicates that the name referred to a deceased United States Senator. 44 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD company property, as required by the Board's decision in the Walton case; 9 that the contents of the Union's literature, no matter how objectionable to the Respondent, do not constitute special circumstances under the cited decision; and that, in any event, the statements in the leflets were privileged and, if any exceeded proper bounds, only employee circulation of these leaflets containing such statements may be prohibited on its property. The General Counsel further argues that employees' right to circulate union literature on company property on their own time does not depend on whether or not other avenues of communication are available to the Union and that, at any rate, there are no other adequate facilities for effectively reaching the Respondent's employees. Lastly, the General Counsel urges that the contractual grievance procedure cannot justify the ban here because the leaflets cir- culated were organizational in nature and also served as a privileged medium of communication between the Union and the employees it represented. C. Concluding findings Only recently the Board, in the Walton case, reconsidered the question of the right of employees to solicit union membership and to distribute union literature on com- pany premises in the light of Supreme Court decisions. Insofar as relevant to the issues herein, the Board restated the law as follows: No-solicitation or no-distribution rules which prohibit union solicitation or distribution of union literature on company property by employees during their nonworking time are presumptively an unreasonable impediment to self-organi- zation, and are therefore presumptively invalid both as to their promulgation and enforcement; however, such rules may be validated by evidence that special circumstances make the rule necessary in order to maintain production or discipline. This recognition of employees' right to limited access to company property is the result of a careful adjustment worked out by the Board, with court approval, between employees' undisputed right to engage in organizational and concerted activities for their mutual aid and protection guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, and the equally undisputed right of employers to control their property as they see fit. As indicated above, this adjustment preserves management's prerogative to deny employees access to its property to distribute union literature where such denial is necessary to maintain production or discipline in the plant Moreover, as the employees' right to distribute union literature is but an incident of their right to assist labor unions and to engage in concerted activities, statutory protection attaches only to matters of legitimate concern to them in their capacity as employees such as, the betterment of working conditions 10 or organizing their fellow workers. On the other hand, this protection is not lost simply because the information imparted is not entirely accurate, or is exaggerated or objectionable to the employer, provided, of course, .the information is not deliberately false or maliciously inspired." Were it otherwise, the freedom of expression and communication enjoyed by employees, unions, and employers alike would be very tenuous and dubious. Applying the foregoing principles to the facts of this case, I find that the Respond- ent's prohibition of employees distribution of union literature on its property during nonworking hours violated Section 8(a) (1) of the Act.12 Clearly, this ban was prompted .by the leaflets employees distributed while Chamberlain was president of the local. As indicated above, these leaflets dealt with matters of vital concern to employees as employees, and had the objectives of improving their working condi- tions, including conditions in the cafeteria,13 negotiating a better contract than that PWalton Manufacturing Company, 126 NLRB 697 10Jefferson Standard Broadcasting Company, 94 NLRB 1507, 1511-1512, affil sub nom. NLRB v. Local Union No 1229, Inte, national Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, 346 U S 464 11 Cf Marlin Firearms Company, 116 NLRB 1834 , 1839-1840; El Mundo Broadcasting Corporation, 108 NLRB 1270, 1278-1280; Paul Cusano, et al, trading as American Shuffle- board Company, et al, 92 NLRB 1272, 1274-1275, enfd 190 F 2d 898 (C.A 3) 12 Contrary to the implication in the Respondent's brief, I find that the principle of the Walton case is applicable here whether the Respondent's ban is viewed as the promulga- tion of a rule or order or the withdrawal of permission to employees to circulate union literature on its property 1a There is no question that the quality of food served in the cafeterias and the prices charged were matters of legitimate concern to employees and related to their terms and conditions of employment. Cf. Weyerhauser Timber, Company, 87 NLRB 672 In fact, UNITED AIRCRAFT CORP., PRATT & WHITNEY DIVISION 45 then in effect, organizing the unorganized employees, and strengthening the Union. Although the Union's criticism of the Respondent in these leaflets was sharp and definitely not without partisan appeal, and understandably irritating to the Respond- ent, it did not exceed the proper bounds of lawful comment and concerted activity. It is significant that no evidence was adduced at the hearing to show that these state- ments were deliberately untrue or maliciously inspired. On the contrary, Chamber- lain credibly testified that his criticism of cafeteria conditions was based on per- sonal experience and reports from other employees. Nor do I find that the employees lost their right to distribute union literature on company property simply because about 4 months before the ban, Chamberlain's predecessor, Greenberg, as the local's administrator, issued two leaflets characterizing the Respondent's officials as "Com- munist," "Fascist," and "Storm Trooper." Clearly, such epithets, to the Union's credit, were not repeated in the later Chamberlain leaflets which precipitated the ban and therefore cannot support, at least for that reason, the Respondent's blanket ban on employee distribution of all union literature on company property.14 Another question, however, would have been presented here had the Respondent cofined its ban to the circulation of union leaflets containing language of the type found in the two Greenberg leaflets, which appears to have gone beyond the pale of protected concerted activity-15 But this the Respondent obviously did not do. I further find that the record does not support the Respondent's contention that special circumstances were present which justified barring employees from distribut- ing union literature on their own time on company property. The Respondent's as- sertion that the Union's leaflets encouraged and contributed to the disturbances in the cafeteria is not sustained by the evidence. Not only is there nothing in the leaflets which advocated such action, but it is just as reasonable to infer that the employees engaged in such conduct on their own to dramatize their protest against the Respondent's failure to satisfy their complaints about cafeteria conditions, whether these complaints were real or fancied. Moreover, even assuming that the leaflets incited the booing in the cafeteria, the Respondent has not demonstrated that the ban was necessary to the maintenance of production or discipline. Indeed, the record shows the contrary, for, as soon as the Respondent threatened employees with disciplinary action if the booing did not cease, this conduct stopped. As stated above, the Respondent also contends that it was privileged to deny em- ployees access to its property for distributing union literature on their own time be- cause other avenues of communication with employees were available to the Union and because the Union did not seek adjustment of its complaints through the con- tractual grievance procedure but, instead, ,aired them in its leaflets. I find no merit in this contention. With respect to other avenues of communication, the Supreme Court and the Board have made it unequivocally clear that their availability to the Union has no relevance where an employee's right to distribute union literature is in- volved as distinguished from a nonemployee's right which depends on the lack of other effective means of reaching employees.16 For this reason , I find it un- the Respondent invited the Union to bring such complaints to it and provided in its con- tract with C. R. Brown Cafeterias for the service of food of good quality to its employees at reasonable prices. 14 As indicated previously, the Respondent put in evidence several leaflets which were circulated off the Respondent's premises after the imposition of the ban herein involved. Obviously, these leaflets can also have no material bearing on the lawfulness of the Re- spondent's earlier ban. is Cf. E A. Laboratories, Inc., 88 NLRB 673, 674-675, where the Board found that the employer was justified in refusing to recall an employee because he had repeatedly called its president a "Fascist" while the employee was distributing union literature at the plant entrance. 16 N L R.B. v. The Babcock & Wilcox Company, 351 U S 105, 112-113 ; Republic Avia- tion Corporation v N L R B , 324 U S 793 ; contra, N L R B v Rockwell Manufacturing Company, 271 F. 2d 109 (CA. 3), which the Board did not follow in its later decision in Walton Manufacturing Company, 126 NLRB 697. The Respondent's reliance on lan- guage in N L R B v United Steelworkers of America, CIO, Nutone Inc , Intervenor, 357 U.S. 357, 363, is misplaced Unlike the present case, the Court there was concerned with a valid no-solicitation rule which the company enforced against employees but itself en- gaged in antiunion solicitation A majority of the Court there held that, in such circum- stances , the Board should consider, among other things , whether the no-solicitation rule truly diminished the ability of the union to communicate with the employees, in deter- mining whether the company lawfully applied the valid no-solicitation rule Time-O-Matic, Inc. v. NLR.B., 264 F 2d 96, 100 (C.A. 7). 46 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD necessary to determine whether the Union had other reasonable alternatives for communicating with employees. As for the existence of the contractual grievance procedure, the Board has not made compliance with it a condition for the exercise of employee rights to distribute union literature on company property during nonworking hours. Moreover, the grievance procedure in the Respondent's contract with the Union does not impose such a requirement.17 In any event, assuming that it did, it could not justify the Re- spondent's ban on employee distribution of all union literature on company property in view of .the fact that the leaflets here in question served not only to publicize the employees' grievances but also served as a medium of communication between the Union and the employees it represents and as a facility for organizing the unorganized fellow employees.18 Accordingly, I find that the Respondent's refusal to permit employees on their own time to distribute union literature on its premises constituted an impediment to the exercise of employee rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act and that the Respond- ent thereby violated Section 8(a) (1) of the Act. IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of Respondent set forth in section III, above, occurring in con- nection with its operations set forth in section 1, above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States, and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow thereof. V. THE REMEDY Having found that the Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices, I shall recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and from like or related conduct. I shall also recommend that the Respondent notify the Union that it has rescinded its action prohibiting employees from distributing union literature on their own time on company property. I shall further recommend that the Respondent take certain other affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act, as provided below. Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record in the case, I make the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, UAW, AFL-CIO, and its Local # 1234, are labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 2. United Aircraft Corporation, Pratt and Whitney Aircraft Division, is an em- ployer within the meaning of Section 2(2) of the Act. 3. By prohibiting employees from distributing on their own time on company prop- erty literature issued by the above-named Unions, the Respondent has interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of their rights in violation of Section 8 (a),(1) of the Act. 4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices within the mean- ing of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. [Recommendations omitted from publication.] 17 There may be a question here, which I need not decide, as to whether the grievance procedure was applicable to many of the grievances mentioned in the leaflets Article V, section 2, of the parties' contract provides for the resolution of differences "concerning the interpretation, application or compliance with the provisions of this agreement " is In its brief, the Respondent alludes to the absence of antiunion bias and, among other things, to certain bulletin board privileges accorded the Union However, it is settled law that the validity of a prohibition on employee distribution of union literature such as that involved here does not depend upon the employer's motivation. Republic Aviation dorporatson v. N L.R.B., 324 U.S. 793. As for the bulletin board privileges, they are pro- vided for in the parties' contract and are limited to posting, with the Respondent's approval, of notices of union meetings, elections, results of elections, office appointments, and union social affairs. Manifestly, this privilege is not coextensive with the employees' right to distribute union literature which the Board and courts have recognized.