Renmuth, Inc.

298 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Renmuth, Inc. and International Union, United Au- tomobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, (UAW) Renmuth, Inc. and John J. Rusk. Cases 7-CA-8548 and 7-CA-8734 February 2, 1972 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS JENKINS AND KENNEDY On December 8, 1971, Trial Examiner Max Rosen- berg issued the attached Decision in this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed exceptions. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na- tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au- thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. The Board has considered the record and the Trial Examiner's Decision in light of the exceptions and has decided to affirm the Trial Examiner's rulings, findings,' and conclusions and to adopt his recom- mended Order. ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Re- lations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board adopts as its Order the recommended Order of the Trial Examiner and hereby orders that the Re- spondent, Renmuth, Inc., Detroit, Michigan, its offic- ers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the ac- tion set forth in the Trial Examiner's recommended Order. ' In adopting the Trial Examiner's finding that Respondent violated Sec 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act by discharging Grenillo and Rusk, Chairman Miller and Member Kennedy do not pass on his alternate finding that such discharges were illegal because they were based on an overly broad and disparately applied no-solicitation rule TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE MAX ROSENBERG , Trial Examiner : These cases were tried before me in Detroit, Michigan, on July 21, 1971, on an amended complaint of the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board and an amended answer filed by Ren- muth, Inc., herein called the Respondent.' The issues raised by the pleadings relate to whether Respondent violated Sec- tion 8(a)(1) and (3) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, by certain conduct to be detailed hereinafter. At the conclusion of the hearing, the General Counsel and the Respondent orally argued their respective causes. Briefs have ' The complaint, which issued on June 25, 1971, is based on charges filed in Case 7-CA-8548 on March 9, 1971, and served on March 10, 1971, and, charges filed in Case 7-CA-8734 on May 24, 1971, and served on May 25, 1971. been received from the General Counsel and the Respondent which have been duly considered.' Upon the entire record made in these proceedings, I hereby make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS I THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT Respondent, a Michigan corporation, maintains an office and place of business in Detroit, where it is engaged in the manufacture, sale, and distribution of metal stampings, fabri- cations, and related products. During the annual period material to these proceedings, Respondent purchased and caused to be transported and delivered to its Detroit plant, metals and other goods and materials valued in excess of $50,000, of which goods and materials valued in excess of $50,000 were transported and delivered to its plant in Detroit directly from points located outside the State of Michigan. The complaint alleges, the answer admits, and I find that Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act. II THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED International Union , United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, (UAW), herein called the Union, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. III THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES The complaint alleges that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by promulgating and maintaining an inor- dinately broad no-solicitation and no-distribution rule de- signed to inhibit the lawful activity of its employees in sup- port of the Union. The complaint further alleges that Respondent impinged on its employees rights, in violation of that section, by the following conduct: Threatening em- ployees with discharge unless they refrained from joining or assisting the Union; creating the impression among em- ployees that it was surveilling their union activities; promis- ing economic benefits, such as picnics and parties, if they ceased enggaing in union endeavors; and, encouraging and participating directly to assist its employees in the formation of committees to bargain with Respondent in order to dis- suade them from supporting or rendering assistance to the Union. Finally, the General Counsel contends that Respond- ent offended the provisions of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) by discharging employees Stephen Grenillo on February 4, 1971,' and Lloyd Hardin and James Robinson on March 1, and by suspending John J. Rusk conditionally on May 12, and indefinitely on May 21, because these individuals en- gaged in activities on behalf of the Union or otherwise par- ticipated in protected, concerted activities under the Act. Respondent denies that it indulged in any labor practices proscribed by the Act. Inasmuch as Respondent did not summon any witnesses in this proceeding, the testimony elicited from the General Counsel's witnesses is uncontroverted and I find the facts as related by them on the stand. ' Following the close of the hearing, the General Counsel moved to correct the transcript in various respects Respondent has filed its opposition to the motion As the corrections merely seek to clarify obvious errors of the transcriber and are not prejudicial to Respondent, I shall hereby grant the motion and correct the record accordingly. ' Unless otherwise indicated, all dates herein fall in 1971 195 NLRB No. 54 RENMUTH, INC 299 Respondent is a black-owned corporation. By the peculiar nature of the corporate franchise, it is committed to dedicate a percentage of its gross revenue to the black community in Detroit. The vast majority of the work complement are blacks. There are no interracial or intraracial overtones in this litigation. The foregoing comment is intended solely to amplify the events which transpired in these cases. On December 17, 1970, employee John Rusk visited the Union's headquarters to enlist its support in representing Respondent's employees who complained of inequities re- garding the terms and conditions of their employment. On the same date, he signed an authorization card. In early January, the Union launched an organizational campaign among the employees and, shortly thereafter, filed a petition with the Board in Case 7-RC-10332 seeking an election in an appropriate unit of Respondent's personnel. On February 1, the Board conducted a hearing on the issues raised by the petition and, on February 9, the Regional Director for Region 7 issued a Decision and Direction of Election. An election was held on March 11 and, at the conclusion of the balloting, the tally of votes showed that the Union had won by a score of 30 to 14. On March 16, Respondent lodged objections to the conduct of the election. After considering the objections, the Regional Director found that they lacked merit. On April 8, he certified the Union as the exclusive bargaining repre- sentative of Respondent's employees. Meanwhile, on or about January 20, when the Union's organizational drive was in high gear, Respondent posted a series of rules and regulations on its bulletin board prohibit- ing a variety of conduct by employees. Listed among these proscriptions were: 12. Soliciting or taking collections for any cause on Company property without proper authorization. 34. Campaigning, speechmaking or unauthorized distri- bution of written or printed literation [Sic] or propa- ganda of any type on Company property Stephen Grenillo was employed by Respondent in June 1970 and worked as a press operator under the supervision of Plant Superintendent James Brown until his discharge on February 4. Early in January, Grenillo received a blank au- thorization card in Respondent's parking lot from a union representative which he executed and returned to the solici- tor. On February 1, Grenillo was summoned by the Union to give testimony in Case 7-RC-10332 at the Board's offices in Detroit. Present at the hearing, in addition to Grenillo, were Lloyd Hardin, another alleged discriminatee herein, Robert Renfro, Respondent's chairman of the board, and Respond- ent's attorney, Ralph H. Richardson. Prior to February 4, Grenillo engaged in frequent conver- sations with fellow employees during nonworking hours re- garding unionization of the plant. On the morning of Febru- ary 4, Grenillo and several employees assembled in the lunchroom before the start of their shift at which time Gre- nillo and Lloyd Hardin distributed leaflets to them announc- ing the date of the next union meeting. When the shift began, Grenillo's blanking machine became clogged with pieces of steel. He walked around the machine to correct the malfunc- tion and noticed that a new employee was examining a die at an adjacent work station. Grenillo approached the employee, handed him a union designation card, and inquired whether he had signed one. At this juncture, Plant Superintendent Brown walked up to the men and confiscated the card from the employee, after which he instructed Grenillo to report to the lunchroom. Grenillo repaired to the room and, after a lapse of 45 minutes, he was summoned by Brown to the office of Rol>,Frt Renfro. When Grenillo reached the office, Renfro remarked, "You know, you are in trouble." Citing the Na- tional Labor Relations Act, Renfro stated that it contravened Respondent's posted plant rules to distribute union authori- zation cards on company time. Renfro then inquired as to why Grenillo desired to distribute the designations and "why I wanted to get the Union in the plant." Grenillo responded that it was rather late for Renfro to ask such a question, stating that "one of the main reasons I wanted the Union in there was for a little job security." Renfro reiterated that Grenillo "shouldn't have tried to bring the Union in there and that we [the union adherents] were trying to break his back," explaining that Respondent's failure to provide increased job security and benefits to the men had been frustrated by the opposition of Renfro's partner. Renfro commented that Gre- nillo "was too union indoctrinated" and then announced that Grenillo "was suspended and that I would be notified for a hearing between him and his attorney and he told me he knew I was going to get in touch with the UAW attorney and he would call me back after the hearing to see if I was fired or would be reinstated." About 2 weeks later, Renfro telephoned Grenillo that Ren- fro had scheduled a meeting at the plant with Attorney Rich- ardson. When Grenillo arrived, Richardson told Grenillo that the session was being conducted for his benefit so that he could present his side of the story regarding the occurrence on February 4 which led to his suspension. Grenillo related that his machine had become clogged and, while attempting to fix it, he handed a union authorization card to another employee in the presence of Plant Superintendent Brown, who intercepted the designation and ordered Grenillo to pro- ceed to the lunchroom. Richardson asked whether Grenillo was employed by the Union and whether he had distributed cards on his own time. Grenillo assured counsel that he was not in the employ of the Union, and that he had limited his efforts on its behalf to nonworking hours. After reading back Grenillo's statements, Richardson "gave his decision that I had illegally, that I was soliciting on company property, which was against the Labor Relations Act, and that I was therefore terminated." Rounding out Grenillo's undenied tes- timony, I find that he had never observed the no-solicitation, no-distribution rule which Respondent displayed on its bulle- tin board commencing on January 20. James Robinson was employed by Respondent as a Hi-lo driver in November 1970, and worked in that capacity until March 1. On some undisclosed date, he executed a union authorization card at a meeting in the union hall. After sign- ing the document, Robinson engaged in frequent discussions with his fellow employees in the lunchroom regarding the benefits of unionization. During the course of his employ- ment, Robinson obtained Blue Cross coverage under a pro- gram in which he paid one-half of the monthly premium and Respondent paid the remainder. Around the end of February, Robinson suffered a discharge from his private parts. Con- cerned with this happenstance, Robinson sought out his supervisor, Plant Superintendent Brown, to request time off from work in order to undergo an examination at a local hospital. Brown gave Robinson permission to absent himself from the plant. At the medical facility, Robinson handed two pink insurance slips, which Brown had previously given him, to a receptionist after explaining to her about his physical discomfort. The receptionist conferred with another hospital attendant and informed Robinson that his Blue Cross cover- age was "no good, it's only for occupational injuries." Upon receiving this intelligence, Robinson telephoned Respondent to obtain transportation and returned to work that afternoon. When he entered the plant, Robinson encountered Brown and stated that he desired to cancel his Blue Cross insurance. 300 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Brown instructed the employee to visit the office and com- plete the requisite cancellation forms. The following day, Robinson consulted a physician about his condition and reported to work the next morning, March 1. During the day, he informed several employees of his experiences at the hospital, complained that the Blue Cross coverage failed to provide benefits for nonoccupational dis- eases, reported that he had decided to drop the insurance plan, and urged them to follow his example. Thereafter, he approached Plant Superintendent Brown and again disclosed that he wished to cancel his coverage . Brown replied "Okay," and told Robinson to have the office secretary handle the matter . A short while later, Brown instructed Robinson to proceed to Renfro's office. Robinson did so and, upon his arrival, Renfro asked the former why he desired to relinquish his insurance coverage . Robinson replied that "it was because it was no good and I am paying for something not benefiting me." Renfro stated, "Okay. You cancel the insurance, but don't tell the other employees the insurance is no good." Robinson retorted, "How come I can't tell the other people," adding that "you can fire me if you want to, but they have a right to know that the insurance is no good." Later in the day, Robinson was at work in the back of the shop stacking boxes with his Hi -lo when Joe Stubbs, Re- spondent's production supervisor, walked by and instructed Robinson to "Help the new man in front." Robinson told Stubbs that "I had to straighten up the back there first and I was lifting another box up ." Robinson continued working in the back of the facility when, approximately 35 minutes later, Stubbs reappeared and stated, "I told you to take your damn ass up and help the man in front." Robinson angrily retorted, "Wait a minute, you don't talk to me like that. I said, I was going to go up and help the man and that I am going to do this and I said, `Don't holler to me like that because I am man like you are."' Stubbs left the scene and a few minutes later Robinson proceeded to the front of the plant where he commenced to assist the new Hi-lo operator. Shortly thereafter, Stubbs approached and announced that Renfro wished to speak with Robinson . When Robinson en- tered the office, Renfro opened the discussion by saying "It seems like you can't follow instructions of the supervisors." Robinson inquired, "Who is the supervisor?" and Renfro repeated "You can't follow instructions of the supervisor." Robinson inquired, "Am I terminated?" and Renfro replied, "Yes, you are terminated." According to Robinson's un- denied testimony, Renfro then stated that "he could have terminated me when the hospital told me that I had a social disease and I said, `How could they know that when they didn't even check me?' I said, I could get the hospital for slander and he said , `You and Lloyd [Hardin] are telling the people the insurance is no good , and to cancel it."' Following a heated exchange regarding Robinson 's terminal pay, he procured his final wages and left the plant . With the exception of being warned on one occasion about failing to wear safety glasses, Robinson's testimony is undisputed and I find that he had never been reprimanded for insubordination. Lloyd Hardin was hired by Respondent in July 1970 and, like Robinson, was discharged on March 1 . Hardin toiled as as a press operator under the supervision of Joe Stubbs. Some- time in January, Hardin received a blank authorization card after work from a union representative which he signed and mailed to the labor organization . From that day until the date of his discharge, Hardin encouraged his fellow employees to join and assist the Union during work breaks, and distributed union literature and cards to the men on his own time. To- ward the end of January, he received a telephone call from a union official requesting that he appear at the Board 's offices for a hearing on the pending representation petition . Hardin complied with the request and, on February 1, presented himself and gave testimony. In attendance at that proceeding were Grenillo, Renfro, and Attorney Richardson. Hardin testified and I find that, either in late January or early February, Renfro called Hardin into the office and en- gaged the latter in a conversation regarding the plant. Renfro opened the colloquy by stating the "he was trying to do things for the black community, as invest money back in the black community and so forth ." The next day , Hardin was again summoned to Renfro's office. On this occasion, Renfro re- marked that "I thought you were intelligent but I see you are not." Renfro added, "Go ahead with your union activity." Around the middle of February , Renfro scheduled a safety meeting. In the course of his speech, Renfro announced that he and Attorney Richardson "and the people in personnel were going to run that shop and he let that be known, and he let it be known that Mr. Richardson and him was going to be responsible for running that shop, and the other people there." Hardin further testified that , late in February, he was par- taking of his repast with 12 or 15 employees in the lunchroom when Robinson appeared in their midst. Robinson had just returned from a visit to the hospital and he informed the men of his condition and the fact that the institution would not honor his Blue Cross card to treat him because it "was only good for injuries." Upon receiving this information, Hardin weighed the matter and came to the conclusion that "I couldn't see paying for something I wasn 't receiving some- thing for and I felt that if I had to pay half and it was only good for plant injuries-and he [Renfro] would have to take care of that anyway (an apparent reference to Respondent's coverage under Workmen's Compensation)-I didn't need Blue Cross ... " The following day, February 28, Hardin urged his fellow employees to join him in dropping the cover- age. On either February 28 or March 1 , Hardin informed Supervisor Stubbs that he desired to cancel his Blue Cross insurance. Stubbs instructed Hardin to take the matter up with the office clerk. Hardin did so and cancelled his cover- age. On March 1 , Stubbs told Hardin that Refro wished to speak to the employee . When Hardin entered the office, Ren- fro stated that "I told you this was my shop and I would run it the way I choose." Hardin exclaimed that "I am not trying to tell you how to run your shop." Renfro rejoined, "I guess you are," and left the room. When he returned, he handed Hardin his paycheck and stated "that your are being dis- charged for slandering the Company policy and slandering Blue Cross and making people drop their Blue Cross." At the hearing, counsel for Respondent admitted that one reason for discharging Hardin on March 1 was that "the day Mr. Robin- son returned from the hospital and told him [Hardin] that his Blue Cross was no good, . . . he went out in the plant and told the employees things based on what Mr. Robinson said ... without further checking that the Blue Cross coverage was, in fact, no good, and he began to slander the company policy, and the company procedures and the company pro- gram." John Rusk was employed by Respondent as a diemaker and worked under the supervision of Frank Owens, the tool- and-die supervisor. As heretofore chronicled , on December 17, 1970, he undertook to enlist the support of the Union to represent Respondent's employees when he visited the union hall and signed an authorization card on that date. A union official suggested that Rusk obtain a mailing list of employees and Rusk was stocked with union literature. On either February 19 or 22 , while Rusk was working in the toolroom, Supervisor Owens approached Rusk and a fel- low employee and announced that "Mr. Renfro doesn't want RENMUTH, INC. 301 any employee of Renmuth handing out any union cards and he has standing orders to fire anyone who would be doing so." Owens further warned that "if anyone was caught with the card in their possession they would be fired immediately." Rusk testimonially recounted and I find that , on or about March 15, approximately a week after the conduct of the representation election, he observed employee Ray Smith seated at a desk in the shop during working hours surrounded by approximately five employees, and he overheard Smith speak to them about an antiunion petition which he held in his hand. Smith exhorted the employees "to give Renmuth a chance to grow and that having a union in the shop would break the Company, and put them out of business." Smith urged the men "to sign the petition to try and get the Union out, and it would be presented to the National Labor Rela- tions Board."' According to Rusk, Smith devoted approxi- mately 6 hours of his working time to this chore. At one point while Smith was actively engaged in this endeavor, Super- visor Owens walked up to Rusk and asked what Smith was doing. Rusk divulged that Smith was soliciting signatures of employees on a "petition to get the Union out of the shop," and Rusk opined that Smith was engaging in this activity on orders of Renfro. Owens took no action to curb Smith's solici- tation. I further find that, on March 16, Owens visited Rusk at the latter's work station. In an ensuing conversation , Owens is- sued the warning that "You better watch your step today, Mr. Renfro is mad." Owens went on to state that Renfro had asked Owens if Rusk and two or three other employees "had been trying to promote the Union that day," and Owens had replied in the negative. Renfro then told Owens that "any employees caught in the shop would be fired." A few days later, Rusk spotted Smith in the shop during working hours circulating a questionnaire among the employees , and over- heard Smith "asking them to answer the question yes or no and sign their names at the bottom of the petition." Smith inquired whether Rusk wished to sign the questionnaire, but the latter declined. On March 27, Respondent posted a bulletin in the plant inviting all employees to a meeting that day. The bulletin recited, "All those employees interested in discussing person- nel relations at Renmuth, Inc. are invited to participate in a group discussion on Saturday, March 27, 1971, at 12:00 noon." Rusk attended the gathering, which was chaired by Renfro and employee Ray Smith. Approximately 11 other employees attended. During the meeting, an employee ques- tioned Renfro about the feasibility of getting "together with the employees and get to be on a family-type basis" to discuss the problems of the men in the shop. Renfro replied that "this is what they were trying to do right now." Renfro then pro- claimed that "he would allow the employees to have a dance or a party upstairs ... if they brought their own record player and that they would also sponsor a bowling team and also give a Company picnic." Renfro conditioned these benefits, however, on whether "they didn't have to pay Union scale" and "if they didn't have trouble with the Union." One of the employees brought up Rusk's name, advising Renfro "that if it wasn't for John Rusk for giving out buttons and hats and so forth, that the Union wouldn't have been in the shop. " Upon hearing this observation, Renfro "just sort of glared at" Rusk, and Renfro advised Rusk that "the only reason he was keeping me on was because he felt sorry for me and because of my family problems and the bankruptcy that I was going through." Following the meeting, Respondent appended a notice on the bulletin board setting forth the ' Employee Robert Champion corroborated Rusk's testimony in this re- gard topics discussed, including such items as "Company Picnic," "Company Open House ," and "Bowling Teams," and an- nouncing that another convocation would take place on April 3. The second meeting was held as scheduled on April 3 with Renfro and employee Smith serving as cochairman . On this occasion, 22 employees were in attendance. When the meet- ing opened, a part-time electrician asked Renfro if part-time employees could obtain a wage increase . Renfro responded in the negative, stating that Respondent could not afford its grant. A discussion then ensued about nominating and elect- ing a committee which would deal directly with Renfro re- garding employee demands. Renfro advised that he would post a notice in the plant enunciating the procedures for creating such a committee , and that another meeting would be conducted on April 17. With Renfro and Smith once more in the chair , and ap- proximately 16 employees gathered, the April 17 meeting was devoted to the nomination and election of an employee com- mittee which was designated to deal directly with manage- ment regarding such matters as absenteeism and tardiness in the plant. On April 20, Respondent posted a notice in the factory enumerating the action taken at this assemblage and setting forth the names of the committee members. Events abided for Rusk until May 12. On that date, he was called to the office of John Sykes, Respondent's night-shift superintendent . Sykes began the discussion by asking Rusk "what kinds of games I was playing." Rusk expressed igno- rance as to the purport of the question . Sykes explained that "he meant that by my standing around and watching and that my work was slowing down ...." Rusk reminded Sykes that the former's press had been out of order for 3 weeks and Respondent had failed to repair it. Sykes replied that he was suspending Rusk for the rest of the week , and warned Rusk that "in the future that I should watch my step or I would receive disciplinary action for anything I did wrong, and that I was to familiarize myself with the rules on the bulletin board." Rusk returned to work on May 17. At the commencement of his shift on May 20, Owens informed Rusk and two other employees that the shop would be in production for 12 hours that day. Rusk commented that he would work overtime only if Respondent would pay him doubletime for work in excess of 10 hours. Owens replied that he was not authorized to do this and suggested that Rusk speak to Sykes. Later that evening, Rusk had occasion to converse again with Owens. Once more, Owens inquired whether Rusk would put in over- time because Respondent was in need of the services of a diemaker. Rusk repeated his earlier suggestion about receiv- ing double-time pay as a condition to overtime work. Owens stated that, if Rusk did not pull the extra hours, "disciplinary action would be taken against" him. Rusk left his job at the normal quitting time without suffering any penalty. The fol- lowing day, May 21, Owens approached Rusk at his machine and inquired whether the latter intended to work overtime that day. Rusk responded, "Yes, unless I get sick or break a leg." Owens nodded and walked away. Later that night, one of the production employees, Robert Champion, beckoned Rusk to Champion's press. Believing that something was wrong with Champion's machine, because he had been hav- ing trouble with a die, Rusk sauntered over to the production employee. In a conversation which lasted between 20 and 90 seconds, Champion asked whether it was compulsory for him to work a 12-hour shift. Rusk counseled that he had con- tacted the Nation Labor Relations Board and the Union, and was advised that "as far as they could see we would have to work 12 hours or around the clock if management wanted us to because we had no contract with the Company as yet." At 302 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD this juncture, Foreman Leonard King walked by and in- structed Rusk to return to his press. A few minutes later, Rusk went to the lunchroom to obtain a cup of coffee. In doing so, he passed Owens and Sykes who were peering at Respondent's rules and regulations posted on the bulletin board on January 20. Sykes summoned Rusk to his side and, showing him a disciplinary slip, stated "he was suspending me for promoting and influencing employees not to work the Company's schedule. And also, that I had shown employees methods and ways of getting out of work, working 12 hours, and that I had caused a production loss by talking with production employees." Rusk protested that "I had talked to the employees all the time and that I had never mentioned anything about an employee going home or doing anything like that." Whereupon, Rusk left the plant. The following morning, Rusk received a telephone call from Renfro's secretary scheduling a meeting for that day. However, Renfro was called out of town, and another con- frontation was set for June 1. Rusk was unable to make this appointment because he was job hunting, but he did manage to contact Renfro a few weeks later and inquired into his employment status. Renfro remarked that Rusk would re- main suspended pending a hearing. A meeting was finally held in later June, with Renfro and Attorney Richardson present. Richardson studied the contents of the disciplinary form and inquired whether the recorded facts were correct. Rusk stated that "none of it was true and that in the course of my work I have to talk with employees." Richardson mentioned to Rusk "about promoting and influencing em- ployees not working the scheduled hours and I said I had never done anything like that, and I didn't plan on anything like this; and, I wasn't guilty of a work slowdown, and I denied this. And he told me I had stopped a production worker from working on a press and I denied this because Champion had called me over. I thought that there was some- thing wrong with the die and I wanted to repair it." At this point, Renfro stated that he would not "bargain with any- body on the bargaining committee that was not an em- ployee." Richardson concluded the discussion by stating that he wished to investigate the matter further. On June 22, Renfro telephoned Rusk's home to report that he had scheduled a meeting with Rusk for the following day. On June 23, Rusk called Renfro to request a postponement. Renfro rejoined that "it was compulsory that I be at this meeting and if I didn't attend, that I would be considered a quit." There were no further communications between the parties, and Rusk was never reinstated. Robert Champion worked for Respondent as a press opera- tor from February until June, when he voluntarily quit his employment. I find that, on May 21, he summoned John Rusk to his work station and inquired whether it was legal for Respondent to force an employee to work overtime with- out the employee's consent. Rusk replied that the unilateral assignment of overtime constituted a management preroga- tive which must be honored by the employees. At this junc- ture, Foreman Leonard King approached the men and in- structed Rusk to return to his chores. Later that evening, Champion informed Sykes that the former was ill and unable to perform overtime duties. Champion was tendered a note which recited that he was excused from overtime work due to illness. Champion also testimonially recounted and I find that, on or about March 11, Foreman Howard Chapman directed Champion to proceed to the inspection room where he found Ray Smith speaking to three employees. Upon entering the room Smith told Champion "to go back out because I hadn't voted for the Union-I wasn't there long enough to vote." May, employee Emery Johnson appeared at Champion's press with a petition in his hand. Johnson stated that "one of the guys that were on the bargaining union was there and didn't deserve to be there and so I wanted to get him off the petition," an apparent reference to the fact that an active union adherent had appended his name to the petition which sought to negative the Union's victory at the polls in the election of March 11. Johnson continued to solicit other em- ployees for about 45 minutes. According to Champion, Re- spondent's supervisors were constantly on the floor in this department monitoring the presses. The General Counsel asserts that Respondent's no-solicita- tion rule which bans "Soliciting or taking collections for any cause on company property without proper authorization," and its no-distribution rule which prohibits "Campaigning, speechmaking or unauthorized distribution of written or printed [literature] or propaganda of any type on company property," violate the provisions of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act because they are drawn too broadly and because they were disparately enforced to inhibit employees in the exercise of their statutory right to join and assist the Union. In Stoddard-Quirk Manufacturing Co.,' the Board re- defined its thinking regarding the promulgation, mainte- nance, and enforcement of no-solicitation and no-distribution rules. With respect to the former type of stricture, that tribu- nal noted that "Almost from the outset the Board has held with court approval that an employer may in the normal situation make and enforce a rule forbidding his employees to engage in such union solicitation during working time ('working time is for work'), but that a broad rule banning such activity during nonworking time is presumptively in- valid" (at 617). The Board added that "we believe that to effectuate organizational rights through the medium of oral solicitation, the right of employees to solicit on plant premises must be afforded subject only to the restriction that it be on nonworking time." Turning to the curbs which may be im- posed on employee distribution, the Board there observed that "because distribution of literature is a different technique and poses different problems both from the point of view of the employees and from the point of view of management, we believe that organizational rights in that regard require only that employees have access to nonworking areas of the plant premises" (at 621). Where these requirements are disre- garded, the no-distribution rule is similarly presumptively invalid on its face. Even the most casual reading of Respondent's rules por- trays their illegality. The no-solicitation prohibition is pat- ently offensive to Section 8(a)(1) of the Act because it pro- scribes oral exhortations on the Union's behalf during nonworking time. The no-distribution ban is similarly defi- cient inasmuch as it inhibits the circularizing of union leaflets in such broad strokes that it denies access to distribution on nonworking time and in nonworking areas. As Respondent has proffered no evidence to overcome the presumptive inva- lidity of the foregoing rules, I therefore find and conclude that Respondent, by promulgating and maintaining an overly broad no-solicitation and no-distribution rule on and after January 20, ran afoul of Section 8(a)(1). I am also convinced and find that Respondent dis- criminatorily enforced these rules in order to thwart the or- ganizational activities of its employees. As heretofore found, Respondent discharged Grenillo on February 4 for distribut- ing a union authorization card to a fellow worker during working hours and, on May 21, it accorded Rusk a discipli- nary suspension from duty because it believed that he was "promoting and influencing employees not to work the Com- Champion further recalled that, either in late April or early ' 138 NLRB 615. RENMUTH, INC. 303 pany's schedule." Nevertheless, on March 15, Respondent knowingly allowed employee Ray Smith to solicit signatures for an antiunion petition on both company time and in work areas for approximately 6 hours without interference or repri- mand. And, Robert Champion was instructed by Foreman Howard Chapman to proceed to the inspection room where, on company time, Smith again solicited the signatures of employees on a petition which harbored animus toward the Union. Accordingly, I conclude that, by the foregoing con- duct, Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1). I have heretofore found that, on either February 19 or 22, Supervisor Frank Owens threatened Rusk and a fellow em- ployee that Robert Renfro "doesn't want any employee of Renmuth handing out any Union cards and he has standing orders to fire anyone who would be doing so ," and that "if anyone was caught with the card in their possession they would be fired immediately." On March 16, Owens cautioned Rusk that "You better watch your step today, Mr. Renfro is mad," and that "any employees caught in the shop [engaging in union activities] would be fired." I find that, by the afore- mentioned remarks of Owens, Respondent threatened its em- ployees with discharge for assisting the Union, and created the impression that Respondent was monitoring their engage- ment in union activities . I therefore conclude that, by the foregoing conduct, Respondent offended Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. I have found that, at a meeting conducted on March 27, Board Chairman Renfro promised the assembled employees that Respondent would afford them social parties and picnics, and would sponsor a bowling team, if they foresook the Un- ion. By this conduct, I conclude that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1). I have also found that, during a meeting of employees on April 3, Renfro discussed with his work complement the feasibility of establishing an employee committee to deal di- rectly with management regarding their demands and, at a similar gathering on April 17 , Renfro devised the mechanics for the nomination and election of such a committee , despite the fact that Respondent's employees had already voted in favor of representation by the Union. By indulging in such conduct, I conclude that Respondent contravened the provi- sions of Section 8(a)(1).6 I turn next to a consideration of the terminations of Gre- nillo, Robinson, Hardin, and Rusk. As indicated above, Grenillo and Hardin were called to testify at the Board's offices on February 1 in connection with the petition filed by the Union in Case 7-RC-10332. Both Board Chairman Renfro and Attorney Richardson were also present. Prior to the start of the work shift on the morning of February 4, Grenillo and Hardin distributed union litera- ture to the employees in the lunchroom, in full view of Re- spondent's supervisors . Later that day, while his machine was inoperable, he handed a union card to a fellow employee, and was detected in this endeavor by Supervisor Brown Sum- moned to Renfro's office, Grenillo was told that "you are in trouble." Instead of firing Grenillo on the spot under the guise of its no-solicitation, no-distribution rule, Renfro pro- ceeded to grill Grenillo concerning his union activities and sympathies, and Renfro characterized Grenillo as being "too union indoctrinated." A few weeks later, during a session with Renfro and Attorney Richardson, Grenillo was again interrogated about his efforts on behalf of the Union and his suspension from work on February 4 was then made perma- nent. I am convinced and conclude that Grenillo's discharge, when viewed against the backdrop of his known union activi- ties, the single and momentary act of solicitation, and the disparate enforcement of Respondent's no-solicitation rule as evidenced by its tolerance of employee Smith's antiunion so- licitation activities on company time, was motivated, not by any desire to enforce its shop regulations, but rather by the wish to rid itself of a staunch, known union supporter. More- over, the Board has noted that the discharge of an employee occasioned by the violation of an overly broad no-solicitation rule is improper even though the individual was engaged in solicitation on company time and property and could have been disciplined under a valid solicitation rule.' Accordingly, I conclude that, by severing Grenillo from its employment rolls on February 4, Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act. John Rusk's discharge involves considerations much like those affecting Grenillo's termination . Rusk was the prime movant in foisting the Union upon Respondent. He signed an authorization card as early as December 17, 1970, and re- ceived union literature which he distributed. On either Febru- ary 19 or 22, Rusk was warned by Supervisor Owens that "Mr. Renfro doesn't want any employee of Renmuth handing out any union cards and he has standing orders to fire anyone who would be doing so." Owens added that "if anyone was caught with the card in their possession they would be fired immediately." On March 15 , and again on March 16, Rusk was twice solicited by employee Ray Smith, on company time and property, to sign a petition and a questionnaire designed to oust the Union from the plant. On each occasion, Rusk declined. On the latter date, Owens informed Rusk to "watch your step today, Mr. Renfro is mad," and Owens related that Renfro had inquired whether Rusk "had been trying to pro- mote the Union that day." At a meeting conducted on March 27 by Renfro, he was told by an employee "that if it wasn't for John Rusk for giving out buttons and hats and so forth, that the Union wouldn't have been in the shop ...." Upon receiving this intelligence, Renfro "glared" at Rusk and com- mented that the "only reason he was keeping me [Rusk] on was because he felt sorry for me and because of my family problems and the bankruptcy that I was going through." I have heretofore found that, on May 12, Superintendent Sykes suspended Rusk for playing "games" by slowing down production, although it is undisputed that Rusk's machine had been in disrepair for 3 weeks with the full knowledge of Respondent. On May 20, after returning to his job, Rusk refused to work overtime and received no warning or repri- mand. On May 21, he was beckoned by employee Champion. Believing that Champion was experiencing difficulty with a die, Rusk approached the former's work station. In a conver- sation that was limited to between 20 and 90 seconds, Cham- pion inquired whether it was compulsory for employees to perform overtime duties and Rusk replied in the affirmative. Without so much as inquiring into the subject of Rusk's conversation, Rusk was immediately suspended by Owens and Sykes "for promoting and influencing employees not to work the Company's schedule .. and that I had caused a production loss by talking with production employees." On the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, I have no hesitancy in concluding that Respondent actually discharged Rusk on May 21 because he was a known, active union adherent and not because of any infraction of shop rules banning solicitation on company time. Moreover, as in the case of Grenillo, I find that, even if Rusk's separation was triggered by the violation of those rules, this personnel action was illegal under the circumstances because the rules were overly broad and disparately applied. I therefore conclude ' Illinois Marble Co., Inc., 167 NLRB 1012 ' KDI Precision Products, Inc, 185 NLRB No 60, Southern Electronics Co, Inc., 175 NLRB 69 304 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD that Respondent offended the provisions of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act by terminating Rusk. As chronicled above, I have found that Respondent dis- charged James Robinson and Lloyd Hardin on March 1 be- cause they exhorted their fellow employees to cancel their Blue Cross coverage. That the activities protected by the Act encompass the right of employees concertedly to inform their fellow employees of deficiences in their terms and conditions of employment is now well-established.' However, Respond- ent contends that the exhortations of Robinson and Hardin lost the protection of the statute because their utterances operated to "slandering the insurance benefits of the Com- pany with no personal knowledge of what the benefits were." In The Marlin Firearms Company, ' the Board observed that "Employees do not forfeit the protection of the Act if, in discussing matters of such vital concern as their conditions of work, they give currency to inaccurate (but not deliberately or maliciously false) information." As there is no evidence in this record that the statements of Robinson and Hardin were made with the intent to malign or slander Respondent, I find no merit in Respondent's contention. Accordingly, I conclude that, by discharging Robinson and Hardin on March 1 for engaging in protected, concerted activities, Respondent 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 connection with the operations of Respondent set forth in section I, above, have a close, intimate, and sub- stantial relation to trade 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 Respondent has engaged in certain un- fair labor practices, I shall recommend that it cease and disist therefrom and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. I have heretofore found that Respondent discharged Ste- phen Grenillo on February 4, 1971, James Robinson and Lloyd Hardin on March 1, 1971, and John Rusk on May 21, 1971, because they engaged in union activities, and in pro- tected, concerted activities under the Act. I shall therefore recommend that Respondent offer to Grenillo, Hardin, Rob- inson, and Rusk immediate and full reinstatement to their former jobs or, if those jobs no longer exist, to substantially equivalent jobs, and make them whole for any loss of pay they may have suffered by reason of the discrimination practiced against them, by payment to each of a sum equal to that which he normally would have earned from the date of his discharge to the date of offer of reinstatement, less net earn- ings during said period. The backpay provided herein shall be computed in accordance with the Board's formula set forth in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289, with interest thereon at the rate of 6 percent per annum computed in the manner prescribed in Isis Plumbin & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716. Because of the nature and extent of the unfair labor prac- tices engaged in by Respondent, which evince an attitude of opposition to the purposes of the Act in general, I deem it necessary to recommend that Respondent cease and desist Walls Manufacturing Company, Inc, 137 NLRB 1317, The Marlin Firearms Company, 116 NLRB 1834 9 116 NLRB 1834, 1839-40 from in any other manner infringing upon the rights of em- ployees guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclu- sions, and upon the entire record in the case, I hereby make the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 2. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. By discharging Stephen Grenillo, Lloyd Hardin, James Robinson, and John Rusk, thereby discriminating in regard to their hire and tenure of employment, in order to discourage their engagement in union or concerted activities protected by the Act, Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act. 4. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing employees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the purview of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. 5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclu- sions of law, and upon the entire record in these cases, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I hereby issue the fol- lowing recommended:10 ORDER Renmuth, Inc., of Detroit, Michigan, its officers , agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Discharging employees, thereby discriminating in re- gard to their hire and tenure of employment, in order to discourage their engagement in union or concerted activities protected by the Act. (b) Threatening employees with discharge unless they re- frain from joining or assisting the Union. (c) Creating the impression among employees that it is spying on their participation in union activities. (d) Promising employees economic benefits, such as social parties, picnics, and bowling teams, if they abandon their adherence to the Union. (e) Encouraging and directly participating in the formation of employee committees designed to bargain directly with Respondent in order to dissuade them from supporting or assisting the Union. (f) Promulgating, maintaining, or enforcing any rule or regulation prohibiting employees, during nonworking time, from orally soliciting the membership of fellow employees on behalf of the Union or any other labor organization. (g) Promulgating, maintaining , or enforcing any rule or regulation prohibiting employees, when they are on nonwork- ing time, from distributing handbills or other literature on behalf of the Union or any other labor organization in non- working areas of Respondent's property. '° In the event that no exceptions are filed as provided by Section 102 46 of the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the findings, conclusions, recommendations, and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Section 102 48 of the Rules and Regulations, be adopted by the Board and become its findings, conclusions, and order, and all objections thereto shall be deemed waived for all purposes RENMUTH, INC (h) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of their right to self-organ- ization, to form, join, or assist any labor organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, to engage in concerted activities for the purposes 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 I find is necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act. (a) Offer to Stephen Grenillo, Lloyd Hardin, James Robin- son, and John Rusk, immediate and full reinstatement to their former jobs or, if those jobs no longer exist, to substan- tially equivalent employment and make them whole for any loss of pay which they may have suffered as a result of the discrimination practiced against them, in the manner set forth in the section of this Decision entitled "The Remedy." (b) Notify Stephen Grenillo, Lloyd Hardin, James Robin- son, and John Rusk, if presently serving in the Armed Forces of the United States, of their right to full reinstatement upon application in accordance with the Selective Service Act and the Universal Military Training and Service Act, as amended, after discharge from the Armed Forces. (c) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the Board or its agents, for examination and copying, all payroll records, social security payment records, timecards, person- nel records and reports, and all other records necessary to analyze the amount of backpay due herein. (d) Post at its plant in Detroit, Michigan, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix."" Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 7, after being duly signed by Respondent's authorized repre- sentative, shall be posted by it immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material (e) Notify the Regional Director for Region 7, in writing, within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision, what steps have been taken to comply herewith." " In the event that the Board's Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall be changed to read "Posted pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board " " In the event that this recommended Order is adopted by the Board after exceptions have been filed, this provision shall be modified to read "Notify the Regional Director for Region 7, in writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps Respondent has taken to comply here- with " APPENDIX NOTICE To EMPLOYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government WE WILL offer Stephen Grenillo, Lloyd Hardin, James Robinson, and John Rush, immediate and full reinstatement to their former jobs or, if those jobs are no longer in existence, to substantially equivalent jobs, and reimburse them for any loss of pay they may have suff- 305 ered because of our discrimination practiced against them. WE WILL NOT discharge our employees, thereby dis- criminating in regard to their hire and tenure of employ- ment, in order to discourage their engagement in union or concerted activities protected under the National La- bor Relations Act, as amended. WE WILL NOT threaten our employees with discharge if they join or assist International Union, United Au- tomobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW), or any other labor organi- zation. WE WILL NOT create the impression among our em- ployees that we are spying on their activities on behalf of the above-mentioned Union. WE WILL NOT promise our employees economic be- nefits such as social parties, picnics, and bowling teams, if they refrain from joining or supporting the Union. WE WILL NOT encourage or directly participate in the formation of employee committees to bargain directly with us in order to force our employees to reject the Union. WE WILL NOT prohibit our employees, by any rule or regulation, from orally soliciting the membership of their fellow employees in the Union, or any other labor organization, during nonworking time WE WILL NOT prohibit our employees, by any rule or regulation, from distributing union handbills or other literature on behalf of the Union, or any other labor organization, on nonworking time and in nonworking areas of our plant. WE WILL NOT, in any other manner, interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist any labor organization, to bargain collectively through rep- resentatives of their own choosing, to engage in con- certed activities for the purposes of collective bargaining, or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any or all such activities. All our employees are free to become or remain, or refrain from becoming or remaining, members of the above-named or any other labor organization. RENMUTH, INC. (Employer) Dated By (Representative) (Title) WE WILL notify Stephen Grenillo, Lloyd Hardin, James Rob- inson, and John Rush, if presently serving in the Armed Forces of the United States, of their right to full reinstatement upon application in accordance with the Selective Service Act and the Universal Military Training and Service Act, as amended, after their discharge from the Armed Forces. This is an official notice and must not be defaced by any- one. This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other materal. Any questions concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions may be directed to the Board's Office, 500 Book Building, 1249 Washington Boulevard, Detroit, Michigan 48226 Telephone 313-226-3200.