Omni Spectra, Inc.

OMNI SPECTRA, INC. 673 Omni Spectra, Inc. and International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW). Case 7-CA-6811 November 20, 1970 SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS FANNING AND JENKINS On May 26, 1969, the Board issued a Decision and Order in the above-entitled case, finding that Respon- dent had not violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act by certain of its actions and declining to decide whether a warning to employees not to let their union activities "bubble over" into working time violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. Reasoning that even if the aforementioned warning was found to be a violation it would be "too isolated to warrant the issuance of a remedial order," the Board declined to pass on or adopt the Trial Examiner's findings in this respect and ordered that the complaint be dismissed.' Thereafter, the Union petitioned for review of the Board's Order and, on June 5, 1970, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit2 remanded the case to the Board with instructions to "determine whether the conduct complained of constitutes an unfair labor practice, and, if it so decides, to issue a cease-and-desist order and to grant any other such relief as it may consider proper under the Act." The Board has decided to accept the court's remand. 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 having considered the entire record, and being satisfied that the remanded issue may be resolved on the basis thereof, finds as follows: The Trial Examiner found that after an argument involving union membership cards, which took place during working time, but stemmed from an incident that occurred during a break, two employees com- plained that they were being harassed by Ruby Tucker and Stella Maki, two employee organizers. Because of these complaints, Tucker and Maki were separately called into the office of Personnel Manager Petersen, where they had substantially the same interview. Each was advised that she could carry on union activities before and after work as well as during lunch and rest periods but that she should conduct herself in such a manner that her activities during those periods would not "bubble over" into working time. It is on these points that we are asked to decide whether Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1). In finding the violation, the Trial Examiner reasoned that: "This was an improper restriction . . . for it was a warning to the employees that they should tone down their union activities during their free time, and in effect made them responsible for the aftereffects which their activities might have upon the other employees." Upon reconsideration, we find contrary to the Trial Examiner, that these warnings did not constitute an unlawful restriction on Tucker and Maki's union activities in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. These carefully limited warnings were merely reitera- tions of Respondent's valid, posted no-solicitation rule, prompted by Tucker and Maki's disruptions of work in violation thereof. In the circumstances, and as Tucker and Maki could only have understood the warnings as having been prompted by and in reference to the incident in which they had, in fact, allowed their union activities to extend into working time, we shall dismiss the complaint. ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the complaint be, and it hereby is, dismissed in its entirety. t 176 NLRB No 24 2 427 F 2d 1330 186 NLRB No. 93