Solo Cup Co.

1110 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Solo Cup Company Calumet and Industrial District Company and United Papermakers and Paper- workers, AFL-CIO. Case 13-CA-7656 July 10, 1968 DECISION AND ORDER BY MEMBERS BROWN, JENKINS, AND ZAGORIA On June 15, 1967, Trial Examiner Jerry B. Stone 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 cer- tain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision. Thereafter, the Respon- dents filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Deci- sion and supporting briefs. 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 powers in connection with this case to a three- member panel. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial Examiner's Decision, the Respondents' excep- tions and briefs, and the entire record in this case, and hereby adopts only those findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner con- sistent with our opinion herein. While we agree with the Trial Examiner's final conclusion that the Respondents violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by their actions in refusing to allow and/or ejecting the nonemployee union representatives who were distributing union litera- ture from their premises surrounding the plant wherein the employees worked, we do so for the reasons set forth hereafter. In N.L.R.B. v. Babcock & Wilcox Company, 351 U.S. 105, the Supreme Court set forth the law ap- plicable to the distribution of union literature by nonemployee union organizers on employer's pro- perty. Thus the Supreme Court stated: ... that an employer may validly post his pro- perty against nonemployee distribution of union literature if reasonable efforts by the union through other available channels of com- munication will enable it to reach the em- ployees with its message and if the employer's According to a 1963 survey by the city of Chicago, 12,540 can passed the intersection of Dorchester Avenue and 95th Street between the hours of 6 a in and I I p in On the same day, 420 cars went cast on 95th Street between 2pin and 3pin Cf Anmlgainated Fot l Fmplutees Union Local 590, et at v Logan Valle% notice or order does not discriminate against the union by allowing other distribution. [351 U.S. at 112.1 The Court further stated that although nonem- ployee access to company property is governed by different considerations than those applicable to employees themselves: The right of self-organization depends in some measure on the ability of employees to learn the advantages of self-organization from others. Consequently, if the location of a plant and the living quarters of the employees place the employees beyond the reach of reasonable union efforts to communicate with them, the employer must allow the union to approach his employees on his property. [351 U.S. at 113.] We believe that the facts of the instant case fall squarely within the exceptions to the rule set forth above. In effect, the employees here are beyond the reach of reasonable union efforts to communicate with them and, as detailed hereafter, we conclude the no-access rule (and its concomitant no-dis- tribution rule) was discriminatorily enforced. The record reveals that the Calumet Industrial District wherein Solo's plant is located is entered by approximately 99 percent of Solo's employees via automobile through the intersection of Dorchester Avenue and 95th Street. The former is a private street owned by Calumet, hereinafter called CID, and the latter is a very busy public highway carry- ing a 35-mile-per-hour speed limit. Despite a stop sign located on Dorchester Avenue at its intersec- tion with 95th Street, it is still virtually impossible to stand safely at this intersection and successfully pass out literature of any kind because the cars ap- proaching the intersection turn both right and left. The union distributor would therefore run the risk of being injured by cars either coming out of Dorchester Avenue or proceeding along 95th Street.' Other than standing at the aforementioned inter- section of Dorchester and 95th Street, the only possible way for the union organizers, without en- tering on CID property, to reach Solo's employees with their message, which according to the Supreme Court they were entitled to receive, would be through the medium of home visits, radio, televi- sion, or newspapers. In this connection the record indicates that, unlike the small town situation exist- ing in Babcock & Wilcox where the union organizers met the employees on the streets, Solo's employees live in various areas of Chicago, the surrounding Plaza Gtc , et at , 389 U S 91 1, where the Supreme Court noted that the denial of access to a privately owned shopping center to nonemployces would imperil their safety by forcing them to distribute their literature on heavily traveled roads abutting the shopping center 172 NLRB No. 110 SOLO CUP COMPANY towns of Hobart and Whiting , Indiana, and Dalton, Calumet City , and Lansing , Illinois, some 15 to 20 miles from the plant . Thus, it would be virtually im- possible for the Union , without a list of addresses, which Solo in a recent representation case has refused to supply, to meet the Solo employees away from the plant premises and convey its message.' Additionally, assuming that cost was no object, in view of the number of different newspapers and radio and television stations operating in Chicago and the surrounding areas, the Union would have a problem in any event deciding on the appropriate stations or newspapers and would not be able to reach the employees effectively with its message through such media. Accordingly , in view of the substantial evidence that the Union was not able by "reasonable attempts" to reach Solo 's employees "through other available channels of communica- tions" we are forced to conclude that the Respon- dent's policy and/or rule of absolute exclusion of union organizers from their premises is invalid, and its enforcement of a no-distribution rule interfered with , restrained , and coerced Solo's employees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act. Moreover, even assuming, arguendo, that the Respondents ' rule and/or policy was not under the circumstances in and of itself invalid , we further find, in any event , that the absolute exclusion of union organizers from the premises and its con- comitant enforcement of a no-distribution rule were discriminatory , since it was specifically designed for, and enforced solely against, the Union . Thus, we note that there is no evidence whatsoever that any members of the public, other than union organizers, were ever barred from the industrial district by either of the Respondents. In fact the parties stipulated that in addition to police and mail deliveries , catering services , which would appear to include ice cream and sandwich vendors, were allowed within the industrial district. There were no fences, gates, guards, or signs barring trespassers or distribution of literature on the pro- perty, all of which are general indications foreclos- ing the access of private property to the public. Thus, even though the area may not be classed as a fully "public" area, in view of the unlimited acces- sibility to the area established by past practice it has become through custom and use a quasi -public area. In the recent Logan Valley Plaza case,' the Supreme Court in an analogous situation found that a privately owned shopping center could not ex- clude nonemployees who sought to peacefully picket and distribute literature from the premises. In reaching such conclusion the Court pointed out that the shopping center utilized its premises or property as the "functional equivalent" of a "nor- mal municipal business district " and the "public [had] unrestricted access to the property " The Court also noted that the economic development of the United States in the last 20 years, particularly in the area of suburban growth and the advent of shopping centers, would , if a contrary conclusion be reached, allow businesses located in suburban shopping centers to immunize themselves from all types of union campaigns and prevent the "free ex- pression and communication that is the heart of the First Amendment." We find the industrial park in the present case clearly analogous to the privately owned suburban shopping center or the normal mu- nicipal business district and similarly conclude that Respondents cannot deny access to the premises to union representatives, whether it be for picketing or handbilling. Lastly, we note, that on each occasion that the union organizers were barred or ejected from the industrial district , the reason assigned therefor was their union affiliation , and no mention was made about a rule generally banning those members of the public who had no business within the industrial district . In view of the foregoing considerations, it appears clearly established that the only reason the Respondents barred or ejected the union agents from their premises was to prevent them from delivering their message to, and organizing , Solo's employees 4 Accordingly , we find that the Respondents' ex- clusion of union organizers from the premises of the industrial park and its enforcement of a no-dis- tribution rule was violative of Section 8(a)(I) of the Act, in view of the inaccessibility of employees to reasonable union efforts to communicate with them . Furthermore, we also find such conduct violative of Section 8(a)( I) of the Act because as we concluded previously, the rules limiting access (and the distribution of union literature ) were dis- criminatorily applied. In Bab( ocd & Wiho% , 40 percent of the employees Iived in Parts , Texas, a communit of 21,000 people In the instant case , the employees live in Chicago and its surrounding areas , ss hich has a population exceeding 4 nil- lion people ' Supra, In I ' Compare Cranston Print Wore , 117 NLRB 1834, C,enci al D%aanac %, 137 NLRB 1725 , and BahcocA & Wi/coi , sup, a , sshere the plants sicre fenced in and the companies had longstanding rules barring distribution of literature ss hich xsere stnctIN enforced against a // nonemployces 1112 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 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 Respondents, Solo Cup Company and Calumet Industrial District Company, their officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order, as herein modified.' 1. Delete subparagraph A, 1, (b), in its entirety, and substitute therefor the following: "(b) Interfering with the right of union or- ganizers of United Papermakers and Paperworkers, AFL-CIO, to distribute union literature or to other- wise disseminate union information to its em- ployees outside the inside portions of its plant buildings inside the Calumet Industrial District." 2. Delete subparagraph A, 2, (a), in its entirety, and substitute therefor the following: "(a) Grant access rights to union organizers of United Papermakers and Paperworkers Union, AFL-CIO, to distribute union literature and to otherwise disseminate union information on plant premises but outside the inside portions of its plant buildings in the Calumet Industrial District." 3. Delete subparagraphs A, 2, (b), and A, 2, (c), in their entirety, and redesignate subparagraphs A, 2, (d), and A, 2, (e), as A, 2, (b), and A, 2, (c), respectively. 4. Strike from redesignated subparagraph A, 2, (c), the clause beginning with "If" and ending with "Region 13," and capitalize "post." 5 Delete subparagraph B, 1, (b) in its entirety, and substitute therefor the following: "(b) Interfering with the right of union or- ganizers of United Papermakers and Paperworkers, AFL-CIO, to distribute union literature or to other- wise disseminate union information to Solo Cup Company employees outside the inside portions of the Solo Cup Company plant building inside the Calumet Industrial District." 6. Strike from subparagraph B, 2, (a), the phrase beginning with "for" and ending with "case," at the end of sentence. 7. Modify Appendix A, attached to the Trial Ex- aminer's Decision, as follows: (a) Delete the second indented paragraph in its entirety, and substitute the following: WE WILL NOT interfere with the right of union organizers of United Papermakers and Paperworkers, AFL-CIO, to distribute union literature or to otherwise disseminate union in- formation to our employees outside the inside portions of our plant buildings inside the Calu- met Industrial District. (b) Delete from the fourth indented paragraph the phrase beginning with "for" and ending with "case," at the end of sentence. (c) Delete the fifth indented paragraph in its en- tirety. 8. Modify Appendix B, attached to the Trial Ex- aminer's Decision , as follows: (a) Delete the second indented paragraph in its entirety, and substitute the following: WE WILL NOT interfere with the right of union organizers of United Papermakers and Paperworkers, AFL-CIO, to distribute union literature or to otherwise disseminate union in- formation to Solo Cup Company employees outside the inside portions of Solo Cup Com- pany plant buildings inside the Calumet Indus- trial District. b. Delete from the fourth indented paragraph the phrase beginning with "for" and ending with "Case." ' As sections of the Recommended Order and notice appear to %ary from our usual remedial language. certain deletions sere deemed appropriate to conform u ith the'. wlations found TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE JERRY B. STONE, Trial Examiner : Upon a charge filed on November 17, 1966, by United Paper- makers and Paperworkers , AFL-CIO (herein sometimes called the Union or the Charging Party), the General Counsel of the National Labor Rela- tions Board by the Regional Director of Region 13 (Chicago, Illinois ) issued a complaint dated March 15, 1967, against Solo Cup Company ( herein some- times called Respondent Solo or Solo ) and Calumet Industrial District Company ( herein sometimes called Respondent Calumet or Calumet ) alleging violations of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. The Respondents' duly filed answers admit many of the facts but deny the commission of unfair labor prac- tices. Pursuant to appropriate notice a hearing was held before Trial Examiner Jerry B. Stone at Chicago, Illinois, on March 28, 1967 . All parties were represented at the hearing, participated therein , and were afforded the right to present evidence , to examine and cross-examine witnesses, to offer oral argument, and to file briefs . Briefs have been filed by all parties and have been con- sidered. Upon the entire record in this case and from my observation of the witness who testified , the follow- ing findings of fact, conclusions of law , and recom- mendations are made. FINDINGS OF FACT' SOLO CUP COMPANY 1113 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYERS INVOLVED Solo Cup Company is and has been at all times material to this proceeding a corporation duly or- ganized under and existing by virtue of the laws of the State of Delaware, and is and has been engaged in the manufacture, sale, and distribution of paper containers and related products. At all times material herein, Solo Cup Company has maintained a plant located at 1501 East 96th Street, Chicago, Illinois. During the calendar year ending December 3 1, 1966, which is a representative period, Solo Cup Company, in the course and conduct of its business operations, shipped paper containers and related products valued in excess of $50,000 directly from its Chicago plant to places in the United States other than the State of Illinois. Considering the foregoing, the record as a whole, and as conceded by the Respondents, it is con- cluded and found that Solo Cup Company is now and has been at all times material to this proceed- ing an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. Calumet Industrial District Company is and has been at all times material to this proceeding the trade name and style under which copartners Ad- dison Brown and Doris Brown transact and have transacted business. At all times material herein, Calumet Industrial District Company is and has been engaged in the management and leasing of real estate properties for commerical purposes. At all times material herein, Solo Cup Company has leased from Calumet Industrial District Com- pany land located near the northeast corner of the intersection of Dorchester and 96th Streets in the city of Chicago, Illinois, which has been used as a parking area by employees of Solo Cup Company's nearby Chicago plant. At all times material herein, Calumet Industrial District Company has owned subject to the lease that it has made to Solo Cup Company the northeast corner of the intersection of Dorchester and 96th Streets in the city of Chicago, Illinois. During the calendar year ending December 3 1, 1966, which is a representative period, Calumet In- dustrial District Company received a gross annual revenued and all the foregoing facts, and as con- ' The facts in this case are based upon the pleadings and admissions therein, narrossing of issues by the parties at the hearing, stipulations, the exhibits. and the credited testimony of Gibbons Although other issues were raised by the parties and many other facts than those set forth herein were adduced. I do not find it necessary to discuss such issues or such facts as the resolution of the issues herein remoses the necessity for discussion of the same ' It is noted that the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, 29 U S C Sec 151. et seq in Section 2(2) sets forth. inu'i alra, that "The ceded by Solo Cup Company, it is concluded and found that Calumet Industrial District Company is now and has been at all times material to this proceeding an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.' 11. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED United Papermakers and Paperworkers, AFL-CIO, is and has been at all times material herein a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2( 5) of the Act. It is so concluded and found. Ill. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Issues There is no real dispute, and the evidence is overwhelming that the Respondent by acts of con- duct on September 1, 1966, November 16 and 30, 1966, and December 14 and 19, 1966, interfered with the distribution of union literature to em- ployees of Solo Cup Company by union organizers. The essential issue is whether such interference interfered with the rights of employees guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act and that thereby the Respondents have engaged in conduct violative of Section 8(a)( 1) of the Act. The Respondents' defense is that they had a right to interfere with the distribution of union literature on private property, that a rule prohibiting such dis- tribution is presumptively valid, and that the General Counsel has failed to overcome the validity of such rule. The cases principally relied on by the Respon- dents are N.L.R.B. v. Babcock & Wilcox Company, 351 U.S. 105, and Walton Manufacturing Company, 126 NLRB 697. In Walton Manufacturing Company, 126 NLRB 697, 698, the Board set forth as follows: No-solicitation or no-distribution rules which prohibit union solicitation or distribution of union literature by nonemployee union or- ganizers at any time on the employer's proper- ty are presumptively valid, in the absence of a showing that the union cannot reasonably reach the employees with its message in any other way, or a showing that the employer's terms 'employer' includes any person acting as an agent of an employer. directly or indirectly " It is also noted that the jurisdictional commerce standards of the Board are met by the facts set forth The General Coun- sel's motion to correct the transcript as regards the names of various com- panies leasing properties from Calumet Industrial District Company is granted The record reveals such companies to he engaged in interstate commerce and to meet the Board's jurisdictional standards requirements ($50,000 outflow or inflow) 1114 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD notice discriminates against the union by al- lowing other solicitation or distribution.-' ' V L R H v Ilu- Hub, oil & lVdun Cunipuni, %upia, where the Supreme Court held that "an employer may salidly post his property against non-employee distribution of union literature it reasonable ct- forts by the union through other ao.ulable channels of conimuiuc.at on will enable it to reach the employees with its message and If the em- ployer s notice does not discriminate against the union by allowi ng other distribution " In so holding the Court set forth the following ia- tumule and rules "Here the Board holed to make a distinction between rules of law applicable to employees and those applicable to non-employees The distinction is one of substance No restriction may he placed on the employees' right to discuss self-organization among themselves, unless the employer can demonstrate that a restric- tion is necessary to maintain production or discipline Republic 4a iu- nun Coip s N L R B , 324 U S 793, 803 But no such obligation is owed nonemployee organizers Their access to company property is goserned by a different consideration The right of self-organization depends in some measure on the ability of employees to learn the ad- vantages of self-organization from others Consequently, if the loca- tion of a plant and the h%ing quarters of the employees place the em- ployees beyond the reach of reasonable union efforts to communicate with them, the employer must allow the union to approach his em- ployees on his property No such conditions are shown in these records - The essential issue, in my opinion, is whether or not the rule that the Respondents applied con- stitutes a defense for the Respondents within the meaning of the Board's decision in Walton Manu- facturing Company, 126 NLRB 697. B. The Setting Calumet Industrial District Company owns a tract of land in the city of Chicago, Illinois, known as the Calumet Industrial District. The said Com- pany has the said district laid out with streets, street signs, speed zone signs, fire hydrants, and water lines for the area.; Part of the district has been developed in such a manner and part of the district has not as yet been developed. The said district lie, south of 95th Street 4 There are three points of ingress to and egress from the Calumet Industrial District. These points are (I) at a point on the south edge of 95th Street (of the Chicago, Illinois, street system) wherein a person can walk into the said district. The facts reveal that a minimal number of employees use this point of ingress to and egress from public trans- poration; (2) at a point on the south edge of 95th Street (of the Chicago, Illinois, street system) wherein a person can drive (or possibly walk) from 95th Street onto Dorchester Avenues one of the streets laid out in the said district. Virtually all of the employees of all companies operating in the said district use this point of ingress or egress; (3) at a point on the extreme south edge of the said dis- trict where Dorchester Avenue's unpaved portion ' The facts of this case reseal the Calumet Industrial District to he in et- feet a de fa( to municipal district ' A street which is part of the Chicago, Illinois street system This section of Dorchester Asenue is paced The evidence reveals that Solo Cup Company has between 280 and 290 employees who work in the Calumet Industrial District and that there are intersects with 103d Street (which is described as a good country highway). Virtually none of the em- ployees of any of the employers in the said district utilize this point of ingress or egress. In the Calumet Industrial District it may be said that within the developed section that Dorchester Avenue is the main thoroughfare. Dorchester Avenue, as indicated, runs south from 95th Street. In the developed area certain streets are laid out that run from Dorchester Avenue for a distance that would appear to be the length of a city block. There streets run parallel to 95th Street. Such streets are as follows 96th Street, 97th Street, 97th Place, and 98th Street. Between 95th Street and 96th Street, between 96th Street and 97th Street, between 97th Street and 97th Place, and between 97th Street and 98th Street there exists ground space upon which there are plants or buildings of various employers.' There is also a plant or building of an employer located approximately West of Dorchester Avenue and of 96th Street. The Calu- met Industrial District office is located west of Dorchester Avenue and adjacent to 95th Street. Solo Cup Company's production plant is located on the northern half (actually slightly more than one half) of the block area between 96th and 97th Streets. Such site, 96th Street, and a small parking lot approximately in the middle of and to the north of 96th Street, constitute land area leased by Solo Cup Company from the Calumet Industrial District Company. A minimal number of Solo Cup Com- pany employees arrive at and leave from work at a point of ingress to and egress from located just north of the referred-to parking lot and upon 95th Street.? At this point there is a public transportation stop. The vast majority of the employees of Solo Cup Company who work at this location arrive at work and leave from work at the point of ingress to and egress from the Calumet Industrial District located at the intersection of 95th Street and Dorchester Avenue. They further normally proceed to and leave from the Solo Cup Production plant by driving on the portion of Dorchester Avenue between 95th and 96th Streets. To the east of the Solo Cup Production plant there is a continuation of 96th Street which connects with the eastern end of 97th Street. Some employees apparently at times drive from 96th Street onto 97th Street and therefrom enter Dorchester Avenue to 95th Street when leaving from work. Solo Cup Company also leases from the Calumet Industrial District Company space on the block between 97th Place and 98th Street. At this loca- tion is a Solo Cup warehouse where a few em- ployees work." In similar manner these employees use the point of ingress to and egress from the around 1,700 employees of other employers in said district ' According to the credited testimony this is less than I percent of Solo Cup Company's 280 to 290 employees who work in the Calumet Industrial District ' The record reveals the number of Solo Cup Company warehouse em- ployees to be 24 SOLO CUP COMPANY 1115 Calumet Industrial District at the intersection of 9-5th Street and Dorchester Avenue. The facts are clear that the vast majority of the Solo Cup Company employees who work in the Calumet Industrial District utilize automobiles as a means of coming to and leaving work. The way of ingress to and egress from Solo Cup Company's production plant and warehouse in said district is of necessity across lands owned and controlled by the Calumet Industrial District Company. C. The Union Solicitation and Interference Therewith 1. In 1965' In the winter of 1965 union organizers of the United Papermakers and Paperworkers Union went to handbill the employees at Solo Cup Company in the Calumet Industrial District. What occurred is revealed by the following excerpts from the credited testimony of Gibbons: Q. When did you handbill the first time at C.I.D.? A. It was in the fall of 1965-I mean the winter, rather. Q. What did you do? A. Well, Bob Coomer, as I was saying, represented our union and myself. Coomer went on Dorchester Avenue to 96th Street and I prceeded to go through the path on 95th Street to the parking lot to get to the em- ployee's entrance or the-and as I was going in I noticed some people going on to Dorchester and I saw there was a discussion ensued there and subsequently all of a sudden there were two people from Solo Cup approached me and one identified himself as the personnel manager and he told me that I would have to leave the property, this is private property, and I'd have to get off. And as we were discussing it, another man approached from Dorchester Avenue to 96th Street and he identified him- self as a Mr. Reynolds who was employed by C.I.D. 0. Is that what he said? A. Yes. He said he was with C.I.D. and this was private property and I'd have to leave. And we had a lengthy discussion or argument, and finally they said, "Look, either you're going to leave or we are going to have you ar- rested." So we didn't want to get arrested, so we went out back to 95th Street. Q. Where were you standing exactly when this conversation took place? A. I was directly in front of the employee's entrance except just across 96th Street in front of the employee's entrance, a little bit north of 96th Street. Q. What were you doing when these gent- lemen approached you? A. Well, I was passing out a leaflet and I was just talking to an employee of the company who was asking me some questions about unions, and I was trying to pass handbills as these people were going into the plant and that was about it. In 1965 the Union again attempted to pass out leaflets at the Solo Cup Company in the Calumet Industrial District. What occurred is revealed by the following excerpts of the credited testimony of Gibbons: Q. Did you attempt to do any more hand- billing of employees in C.I.D. in 1965? A. Yes. About approximately a year later we went out there to pass another leaflet. Q. Who was this? A. It was myself and I believe it was Bob Coomer again, went out to pass another leaflet, and this time I went by 95th on Dorchester and as we got back on Dorchester, we were ap- proached again by this fellow by the name of Mr. Reynolds, who got real nasty and told us that we'd have to get off the property, and we got in an argument with him. Q. What did he say? What did you say, if you recall? A. Well, I told him we felt we had a right to be here under law, and he said, "No, You don't. This is private property and you'd better get off of it." And I said, "We are not bothering anybody. We are peacefully distributing our literature." He said, "Well, I've got a lot of complaints from companies within the district and I've got a lot of complaints from Solo Cup, and they want you out of here." And we had a lengthy argument about that and he also stated at that time that our leaflets were getting on everybody else's plants in the area. This is because the other employers were complaining, and so, therefore, after that in- cident we filed the charge with the NLRB. Q. You were standing exactly where during this conversation? A. During this conversation I was approxi- mately in the middle of-between 95th Street and 96th Street on Dorchester Avenue in the middle of the street. 2. In 1966 10 The Union next again attempted to handbill em- "The facts herein relating to 1965 are background facts and con- sequently there is no finding herein that such conduct "as violative of the Act The facts relating to events in 1966 are directly applicable to the question of conduct violative of the Act 1116 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ployees of Solo Cup Company in the Calumet In- dustrial District in September 1966. Gibbons, an agent of the United Papermakers and Paperworkers- Union, and John Scaglioni, a representative of the United Rubber Workers, went to the Calumet In- dustrial District on September 1, 1966, at approxi- mately 1:45 p.m." What occurred is revealed by the following excerpts of the credited testimony of Gibbons: A. Well, about 1:45, and I and John Scaglioni were waiting for the employees to come out They came out at 2:00 o'clock. We were standing in the middle of 96th Street east of Dorchester Avenue, and at that time we were just getting ready to distribute our leaflet and the man approached us who had come out of the C.I.D. office and introduced himself as a fellow by the name of Addison Brown and said he was president of the Calumet Industrial Dis- trict Company, and he said, "What are you fel- lows doing out here." "We are passing hand- bills." And he said, "Well, this is all private property" and he says, "You're going to have to leave." He said, "We don't allow any picket- ing in here." Of course we told him we weren't picketing, we were handbilling. He said, "Well, we've got an agreement, all the companies within this district want a no-solicitation rule enforced. He called it a no-picketing rule enforced. "And we cannot allow any unions to come in here and pass out union literature." So at that time we questioned whether or not this was his property because the signs looked just like they- A. Well, we told him-I said, "This doesn't look like your property." I said, "Look at the street sign over there." And he says, "Don't leave that street fool you. I paid for that." I said, "What about the fire hydrant?" He said, "Well, this is all private property." I said, "I notice the city police coming and going patrolling the area." He said, "This is all private property I pay high taxes, and the com- panies in the area do not want unions in here." And he said, "We've got a complaint from Solo Cup and we want you people out of here. Either leave or I'm going to have you ar- rested." So throughout the conversation which was between Scaglioni and myself and the ones who handbill, because the employees would start coming out at that time, one would hand- bill and one would be involved in a conversa- tion and sometimes both of us And then we said, "Look, we live in a democracy. If what you say is true, why don't you have all the companies in the district take a vote on whether or not we can be allowed to come in and take over a majority of votes to leave us in, then welcome [sic] in and pass out leaflets. He said, "I might do that and let you know." We argued some more and said, "If we have to leave, then why don't you get us a mailing list from the company or leave us get in the plant and talk to the people. We won't have to stand out here on the corner." He just laughed at us. So he said-well, we talked to him about this vote business some more, and he said, I'll let you know in a couple of weeks about the vote. And that's about all that happened that time. Q. How long did this conversation last? A. Well, it lasted approximately, oh, I'd say close to 20 minutes from about ten or five to two to a quarter after. On November 16, 1966, Gibbons and Scaglioni again attempted to handbill employees of Solo Cup Company in the Calumet Industrial District. What occurred is revealed by the following excerpts of Gibbons' credited testimony:12 A. Well, we got there approximately 1:45, because we were waiting to distribute our leaflets. A fellow drove out from 96th Street in a brown car and said to us, "Fellows, you know you are on private property." Q. Where were you standing at this time? A. We were standing by the intersection by Dorchester and 96th Street a little east on Dorchester Q. What were you doing? A. Passing handbills. Q. Did this individual say what his name was? A. Yes He said his name was Lowery and he was with the Solo Cup Company. " The parties stipulated to the effect that the Union's h.ndbdhng and leafleting was the distribution of union literature with union ,tuthorv.non cards attached The credited testimony of Gibbons was to the etlect that the Solo Cup Company employees involved lived at various places in Chicago and surrounding towns of Hobart and Whiting. Indiana. and Dal- ton, Calumet City, and Lansing, Illinois Gibbons' credited testimony also revealed that he had no mailing list of such employees and that during the representation proceeding (Solo Cup Company. Case I3-RC-I 1080) that the Company had refused to furnish such a mailing list (names and ad- dresses of employees in the appropriate bargaining unit) '' The pleadings establish that Let) J Hulseman was the president of Solo Cup Company, John P Noon was the director of personnel of Solo Cup Company, John Lowery was warehouse manager of Solo Cup Company, and Hulseman , Noon. and Lowery were supers isors of Solo Cup Cotnp.in within the meaning of the Act The pleadings also establish that Addison Brown was the president of the Calumet Industrial District Company, and that James C Black was the assistant to the president of Calumet Industrial District Company The parties also stipulated that Brov. n and Black in their conduct on the premises leased to Solo Cup Company acted .is agents of Solt) Cup company SOLO CUP COMPANY 1117 Q. Continue. A. And he asked us what we were doing there, and we told him and he said, "You know this is private property" and he said, "What are you going to do about it?" And we said, "We are going to finish passing our leaflets," and from there he drove over to the C.I.D.'s office and was there approximately five minutes and drove back out and made a state- ment like, "So long, Charley," or, "So long, fellows," and drove back down 96th Street into Solo Cup. And approximately a few minutes after the three men walked out of the C.I.D. office and two of them introduced themselves as police officers and one fellow introduced himself as Mr. Black, who is assistant to the president of Calumet Industrial District Com- pany, and he said that I have-the police of- ficer introduced him, rather, as a former lieute- nant of the Chicago police department, and he has a statement to make to you, and Mr. Black proceeded to say that we are on private pro- perty, we are not allowed there and that we better leave. And then we asked Mr. Black what about the vote that Mr. Brown was supposed to have taken, and apparently Mr. Black said, "I don't know anything about it," and we asked where was Mr. Brown and Mr. Black said, "Well, he's in Florida." So then we got into a discussion at that time again about-we had gotten into an argument whether or not this was their property and that we were going to stand there, and we asked Mr. Black again, "Well, if you are not going to allow us to stand here, then why don't you get us a chance to talk to the people," and we didn't get any response and then Mr Black said, "Well, I'm just warning you that this is private property," and we stayed there. And this was just before 2:00 o'clock, the people weren't coming out yet,' and Mr. Black then said, "Well, move over this way a little more," saying move east on 96th Street off of Dorchester, which we did do, and then we talked some more and-well, he did say, "Go out and stand on 95th Street," and this is when I told Mr. Black-I pointed to the traffic on 95th Street and I said, "Well, you've got to be kidding. We'll get killed out there or hurt somebody else," because I pointed out to him that once the trucks turn in, these big trailer trucks were coming around the corner, and they were cutting them pretty short and the traffic was blocked up by the stop sign and there wasn't any room to stand. And Mr. Black said, "I'm telling you this is private property." And that's about all I can remember. On November 30, 1966, Gibbons and a man named Maskel (president of one of the Union's lo- cals) next went to Calumet Industrial District to at- tempt to handbill the employees of Solo Cup Com- pany at 1:45 p.m. What occurred is revealed by the following excerpt of the credited testimony: A. Then the two detectives came out of the C.I.D. office and they said, "Black's going to come out, he's going to read you a statement that you are trespassing," and Black never did show up that afternoon. And the detectives said at that time, "He's going to read you this statement and if you don't leave, he's going to call the district police to come in and arrest you. He's not going to arrest you unless we have a warrant, and he's going to try to get the district police to arrest you." That evening Gibbons and Maskel returned to at- tempt to handbill the employees at 9 p.m. What oc- curred is revealed by the following excerpts of the credited testimony of Gibbons: A. Well, we got out there approximately 9:00 o'clock; and as I was beginning to dis- tribute leaflets Mr. Black drove in and we were in a first-name basis. I call him Jim and he called me Bill. And he said, "Can I talk to you a while, Bill," and I said, "Yes." He invited me over to the C.I.D. office and he said, "Look," at that time I was standing on 95th and Dorchester because at night the traf- fic was a little lighter, and he said, "Look, Bill, I've got a statement here I'm supposed to read to you and if you don't leave, I'm supposed to have you arrested tonight." And I asked if I could see the statement and he said yes and I looked at it. It had on it, "You are trespassing on private property, you are hampering traffic, and that since this matter is before the NLRB that you shouldn't trespass." So anyway, I told him, I said, "Well, Mr. Black"-Jim, rather-I said, "Well, Jim, I'm out on 95th Street now." He said, "Yes, I know you're out there." He said, "If you stay there, I won't have to have you arrested." I said, "Well, I was when you came in. I'm going to be there when you leave. I did it on my own accord. You don't have to worry about that tonight." I said, "If you can guarantee me that there won't be any trouble"-I said, "Next week during the afternoon I'm going to have to go on 96th Street again because it's just impossi- ble to effectively distribute our literature on 95th and Dorchester with all the traffic." So he said, "Well, we will see what happens next week." And that was the end of the con- versation that day. On December 14, 1966, Gibbons and Maskel 1 1 1 S DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD again attempted to leaflet the employees of Solo Cup Company in the Calumet Industrial District. Gibbons and Maskel arrived at the premises of Solo Cup Company around 1.45 p.m. What occurred on that date is revealed by the following excerpts of Gibbons' credited testimony: A. Well, we got out there and we went down Dorchester onto 96th Street again in the middle of Dorchester Avenue and we were waiting to pass our leaflet, and all of a sudden Mr. Black , the two detectives from the police department were there again. I called them and this time they had a fellow by the name-Black approached me and he in- troduced this fellow he had with him as Mr. William Brown , and Mr . Brown says, "I'm a member of the Brown family," and I don't know what that meant. He said he was a member of the Brown fami- ly. All of a sudden he said, "You'll have to leave . This is private property." We got into another discussion on it, and we had the same argument again . I told him I felt we had a right to be here under the law and we are not bothering anybody. We are just trying to get our leaflets out , and he said , "Well, go over there and stand on 95th Street," and again I pointed-said , Well, as we were leav- ing, the discussion was over, we were about ready to leave , he told Mr. Black "Get a war- rant issued for his arrest." Q. Where were you standing exactly when you had this conversation? A. It was in the middle of 96th Street a few feet east of Dorchester Avenue. 0. Could you describe the material you were attempting to give to the employees? A. Yes. It was basically-basically they were handbills made up for our benefit, and he had all material informing the people of unionism and what benefits they could gain through unionism through organizing. On December 19, 1966, James C. Black, assistant to president of Calumet Industrial District Company, admittedly acting as an agent of Solo Cup Company filed a complaint in the Municipal Court of Chicago against Gibbons , on a charge of criminal trespass to lands of Calumet Industrial Dis- trict Company. On January 3, 1967, Gibbons sur- rendered himself to the Chicago police and was ar- rested pursuant to such complaint . Gibbons was fin- gerprinted , had his picture taken for police files, and was locked up for a couple of hours. He thereafter was allowed to post bond. Considering all of the foregoing , I am convinced that the facts reveal that the Respondents were at- tempting to enforce a rule of no distribution of union literature by union organizers at any place in the Calumet Industrial District . The parties stipu- lated that Black and Brown were acting as agents for Solo Cup Company in their conduct on 96th Street (property leased by Solo Cup Company). The effect of what Black and Brown told the union organizers was that Solo Cup Company and the other companies had agreed that there would be no distribution ( by union organizers ) of union litera- ture anywhere in the Calumet Industrial District and that they were enforcing such rule. Thus this case does not simply present Solo Cup Company's attempt to enforce a no-distribution rule on its own premises but reveals that Solo Cup Company was attempting to enforce or have en- forced a no-distribution rule at any point inside the Calumet Industrial District. Although Solo Cup Company could have had a valid rule prohibiting distribution of union litera- ture on its own property, under the circumstances and consistent with the rationale of N.L.R.B. v. The Babcock & Wilcox Company, 351 U.S. 105, and Walton Manufacturing Company, 126 NLRB 697, such cases do not support a conclusion that Solo Cup Company can interfere with the rights of its employees by interfering with union organizers' at- tempts to disseminate union literature otherwise. I find it fundamentally clear that Solo Cup Company has no right to cause or attempt to cause Calumet Industrial District Company or any other company (such as radio stations ) to interfere with or impede the Union in its efforts to organize employees and to thereby interfere with the employees' rights to engage in or refrain from union or concerted activi- ties. As stated, this case does not present a situation wherein Solo Cup Company had a valid rule prohibiting distribution of union literature by union organizers on its properties . The facts are clear that Black and Brown , as agents of Solo Cup Company, were attempting to enforce a rule of no distribution of union literature at any place in the Calumet In- dustrial District . It is further clear that the reason Calumet Industrial District Company ( by Black and Brown ) was attempting to enforce such a rule was because of Solo Cup Company's (and other compa- nies in the district ) attempt to interfere with the Union's attempt to distribute union literature anywhere in the district. The fundamental right involved herein is the right of employees to engage in or refrain from en- gaging in union or concerted activities . The inter- ference with the union organizers ' distribution of union literature naturally interferes with such rights of the employees. The facts in this case go beyond a balancing of Respondents ' property rights with the union organizers' rights to organize . Solo Cup Com- pany 's interference has gone beyond its own pro- perty rights interests , and Calumet Industrial Dis- trict Company's involvement herein is as an agent of Solo Cup Company and is because of Solo Cup Company's illegal interference with employees' rights. SOLO CUP COMPANY 1119 Considering all of the foregoing , I conclude and find that the Respondents , as alleged , have inter- fered with employees' rights to engage in union or concerted activities, or to refrain therefrom. Such conduct is violative of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. I so conclude and find. V. THE REMEDY Having found that the Respondents have engaged in certain unfair labor practices , it will be recom- mended that they cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action designed to effectu- ate the policies of the Act. Since the Respondents have interfered with the Union 's attempt to disseminate literature and infor- mation to employees and thereby have interfered with the employees' rights to engage in or to refrain from engaging in union or concerted activities, I find it necessary in order to fully dissipate the effect of such unfair labor practices that the Respondents shall be required to allow the union organizers ac- cess to the Solo Cup Company employees at the plant premises, and that further Solo Cup Company shall be required to furnish an up -to-date list of its employees within the appropriate bargaining unit to the Union , and with correct names and addresses of said employees , and that weekly thereafter Solo Cup Company shall be required to furnish to the Union necessary corrections to said list. The affirmative requirements of allowing access to the premises and of furnishing lists of names and addresses of employees to the Union shall continue in effect until the question concerning representa- tion in Solo Cup Company, Case 13-RC-11080, has been determined by procedures in that case or otherwise. t ' The Respondents shall also be required to cease and desist from interfering with the Union 's right to distribute union literature as granted under the necessary affirmative order , and shall also be required to cease interfering with the Union's or- ganzational rights unless pursuant to a lawful no- distribution rule within the meaning of Walton Manufacturing Company, 126 NLRB 697, and N.L R.B. v. Babcock & Wilcox Company, 351 U.S. 105. Upon the basis of the above findings of fact, and upon the entire record in the case, I make the fol- lowing CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Solo Cup Company is an employer within the meaning of Section 2(2) of the Act, and is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 2 Calumet Industrial District Company is an employer within the meaning of Section 2(2) of the ' ' The facts in the instant case reveal that there is a pending representa- tion case concerning the employees to whom the Union was attempting to distribute literature The representation case is Solt) Cup Compton, Case Act, and is engaged in commerce within the mean- ing of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 3. United Papermakers and Paperworkers, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the mean- ing of Section 2(5) of the Act. 4. By interfering with the union organizers' rights to distribute union literature to Solo Cup Company's employees and thereby interfering with such employees' rights to engage in or not to en- gage in union or concerted activities, the Respon- dents have interfered with employees' exercise of rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act, and have thereby engaged in and are engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)( i) of the Act. 5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. RECOMMENDED ORDER Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law and upon the entire record in this case, it is recommended A. Respondent Solo Cup Company, its officers, agents, successors , and assigns , shall. 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Interfering with the right of union organizers to distribute union literature or to otherwise dis- seminate union information to its employees by en- forcement of an unlawful rule against such distribu- tion of union literature or dissemination of union information. (b) Until the question concerning representation of its employees in Solo Cup Company, Case 13-RC-1 1080, is determined by procedures in that case or otherwise , in interfering with the right of union organizers of United Papermakers and Paper- workers, AFL-CIO, to distribute union literature or to otherwise disseminate union information to its employees outside of the inside portions of its plant buildings inside the Calumet Industrial District. (c) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining , or coercing its employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action which it is found will effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Grant access rights to the union organizers of the United Papermakers and Paperworkers Union, AFL-CIO, to distribute union literature and to otherwise disseminate union information on plant premises but outside of the inside portions of its plant buildings in the Calumet Industrial District for the period of time set forth in the remedy sec- tion of this Decision. (b) Furnish to the Union up-to-date lists con- taining the names and addresses of all of its em- ployees in the appropriate bargaining unit 13-RC-11080 Such case has a determination therein of the appropriate bargaining unit 1120 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD described in the Decision and Direction of Election in Solo Cup Company, Case 13-RC-11080, and thereafter, weekly, furnish such information as needed to correct such lists, for the period of time set forth in the remedy section of this Decision. (c) Furnish to the Regional Director for Region 13 for the use of Calumet Industrial District Com- pany, in compliance with the remedial aspects of this case by Calumet Industrial District, a list of names and addresses of all of Solo Cup Company's employees (who do not hold supervisory or managerial positions within the meaning of the Act) who have worked at any time for Solo Cup Company in the Calumet Industrial District from September 1, 1966, to the date of said request by said Regional Director. (d) Post at its location in the Calumet Industrial District in Chicago, Illinois, and at such other loca- tions wherein it has employees working who are a part of the appropriate bargaining unit as deter- mined in Solo Cup Company, Case 13-RC-11080, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix A."" Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for Region 13, after being signed by an authorized representative of the Respondent, shall be posted by the Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to em- ployees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (e) If requested to do so by the Regional Director for Region 13, post at its location in the Calumet Industrial District in Chicago, Illinois, and at such other locations wherein it has employees working who are a part of the appropriate bargain- ing unit as determined in Solo Cup Company, Case 13-RC-1 1080, signed copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix B."15 Copies of said notice to be furnished by the Regional Director for Region 13, shall be posted by the Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to em- ployees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (f) Notify the Regional Director for Region 13, in writing, within 20 days from this Decision, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith.' B. Respondent Calumet Industrial District Com- pany, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: " In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, the words "a Decision and Order" shall he 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 Ap- peals Enforcing an Order" shall he substituted for the words "a Decision and Order - 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Interfering with the right of union organizers to distribute union literature or to otherwise dis- seminate union information to Solo Cup Company employees by enforcement of an unlawful rule against such distribution of union literature or dis- semination of union information. (b) Until the question concerning representation of Solo Cup Company employees in Solo Cup Com- pany, Case 13-RC-11080, is determined by procedures in that case or otherwise, in interfering with the right of union organizers of United Paper- makers and Paperworkers, AFL-CIO, to distribute union literature or to otherwise disseminate union information to Solo Cup Company employees out- side of the inside portions of Solo Cup Company plant building inside the Calumet Industrial Dis- trict. (c) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining , or coercing Solo Cup Company em- ployees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Sec- tion 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action which it is found will effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Grant access rights to the union organizers of the United Papermakers and Paperworkers Union, AFL-CIO, to distribute union literature and to otherwise disseminate union information on Solo Cup Company plant premises but outside of the in- side portions of Solo Cup Company's plant buildings in the Calumet Industrial District, for the period of time set forth in the remedy section of the Decision in this case. (b) Sign copies of attached Appendix B and furnish the same to the Regional Director for Re- gion 13, if requested, for posting by Solo Cup Com- pany on its premises. (c) Sign copies of the attached Appendix B and mail signed copies of said notice to the named per- sons on a list of names and addresses of Solo Cup Company employees who have worked during the material time herein. Such lists of names and ad- dresses to be furnished to Calumet Industrial Dis- trict Company by the Regional Director for Region 13, after the latter has obtained the same from Solo Cup Company. (d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 13, in writing, within 20 days from the date of this Decision, what steps the Respondent 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 Sup,a fn 14 In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, this provision Shall he modified to read "Notil said Regional Director, in writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith " Sup,a, fn 16 SOLO CUP COMPANY and in order to effectuate the policies of the Na- tional Labor Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify our employees that: WE WILL NOT interfere with the right of union organizers to distribute union literature or to otherwise disseminate union information to our employees by enforcement of an unlaw- ful rule against such distribution of union literature or dissemination of union informa- tion. Until the question concerning representation of our employees in Solo Cup Company, Case 13-RC-1 1080, is determined by procedures in that case or otherwise, WE WILL NOT interfere with the rights of union organizers of United Papermakers and Paperworkers, AFL-CIO, to distribute union literature or to otherwise dis- seminate union information to our employees outside of the inside portions of our plant buildings inside the Calumet Industrial District. WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our em- ployees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. WE WILL grant access rights to the union or- ganizers of the United Papermakers and Paper- workers Union, AFL-CIO, to distribute union literature and to otherwise disseminate union information on plant premises but outside of the inside portions of our plant buildings in the Calumet Industrial District for the period of time set forth in the remedy section of the Decision in this case. WE WILL furnish to the United Papermakers and Paperworkers Union, AFL-CIO, up-to- date lists containing the names and addresses of all of our employees in the appropriate bar- gaining unit described in the Decision and Direction of Election Solo Cup Company, Case 13-RC-1 1080, and thereafter, weekly, furnish such information as needed to correct such lists, for the period of time set forth in the remedy section of the Decision of this case. SOLO CUP COMPANY (Employer) Dated By (Representative ) (Title) This notice must remain posted for 60 consecu- tive 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, 881 U.S. Courthouse and Federal Office Building, 219 South Dearborn Street, Chicago, Il- linois 60604, Telephone 828-7570. APPENDIX B 1121 NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES of Solo Cup Company Pursuant to the Recommened Order of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor Relations Board and in order to effectuate the policies of the Na- tional Labor Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify the employees of Solo Cup Company that: WE WILL NOT interfere with the rights of union organizers to distribute union literature or to otherwise disseminate union information to Solo Cup Company employees by enforce- ment of an unlawful rule against such distribu- tion of union literature or dissemination of union information. Until the question concerning representation of Solo Cup Company employees in Solo Cup Company, Case 13-RC-11080, is determined by procedures in that case or otherwise, WE WILL NOT interfere with the right, of union organizers of United Papermakers and Paper- workers, AFL-CIO, to distribute union litera- ture or to otherwise disseminate union infor- mation to Solo Cup Company employees out- side of the inside portions of Solo Cup Com- pany plant buildings inside the Calumet Indus- trial District. WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce Solo Cup Company employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. WE WILL grant access rights to the union or- ganizers of the United Papermakers and Paper- workers Union, AFL-CIO, to distribute union literature and to otherwise disseminate union information on Solo Cup Company plant premises but outside of the inside portions of Solo Cup Company's plant buildings in the Calumet Industrial District, for the period of time set forth in the remedy section of the Decision in this case. CALUMET INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT COMPANY (Employer) Dated By (Representative ) (Title) This notice must remain posted for 60 consecu- tive 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, 881 U.S. Courthouse and Federal Office Building, 219 South Dearborn Street, Chicago, Il- linois 60604, Telephone 828-7570. 354-126 O-LT - 73 - pt. I - 72