Eastex Inc.

EASTEX INC. Eastex Incorporated and United Paperworkers Inter- national Union, Local 801. Case 23-CA-5085 December 4, 1974 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS FANNING AND PENELLO On September 5, 1974, Administrative Law Judge Richard J. Boyce issued the attached Decision in this proceeding . Thereafter, Respondent filed exceptions and a supporting brief, and the General Counsel filed a brief in support of the Administrative Law Judge's Decision. 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 at- tached Decision in light of the exceptions and briefs and has decided to affirm the rulings , findings, and conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge and to adopt his recommended 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 Administrative Law Judge and hereby orders that Respondent, Eastex Incorporated, Silsbee, Texas, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the said recommended Order. DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE RICHARD J. BOYCE, Administrative Law Judge: This case was tried before me in Beaumont, Texas, on July 23, 1974. The charge was filed May 2, 1974, and amended June 4, by United Paperworkers International Union, Local 801 (herein called the Union). The complaint issued June 4, 1974, was amended at the trial, and alleges that Eastex Incorporated (herein called Respondent) has violated Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act. Posttnal briefs were filed for the General Counsel and Respondent. I ISSUES The issues are whether Respondent 1 At all relevant times maintained no-solicitation and no- posting rules violative of Section 8(a)(1).' 271 2. By prohibiting distribution of a union-sponsored circular on company premises in March-April 1974, violated Section 8(a)(1). 11 JURISDICTION Respondent is a Texas corporation headquartered in Sils- bee, Texas, where it is engaged in the manufacture of paper products. It annually purchases and causes to be shipped into Texas, directly form outside the State, goods and materials of a value exceeding $50,000. Respondent is an employer engaged in and affecting com- merce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act. Ill LABOR ORGANIZATION The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. IV THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. The No-Solicitation and No-Posting Rules 1. The evidence Respondent and the Union have had a bargaining relation- ship concerning Respondent's production employees since 1954. The unit consists of about 800 people. The latest bar- gaining agreement, in effect at all relevant times until its expiration August 1, 1974, contained these provisions:' Plant Rule 14: No peddling or soliciting shall be allowed on the prem- ises without permission of the Production Manager. Pe- titions which are approved by both Management and the Union will be considered for payroll deductions on an individual basis. Plant Rule 15: Notices shall not be posted anywhere in the mill except on company designated bulletin boards which are pro- vided for either general notices or union notices. Ap- proval for posting any notice, except union notices desig- nating time and place of union meetings, must be obtained from Management. All boards must be kept neat and orderly. The same rules, with slight, nonsubstantive variations in lan- guage, appeared in all earlier agreements between Respond- ent and the Union. The General Counsel contends that their maintenance by Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1). Rule 14, according to the uncontroverted testimony of Respondent's personnel director, i°onard Menius, has never been applied "to prevent the Union from soliciting people for union membership or from attempting to collect union dues, I Counsel for the General Counsel makes no reference in his brief to the no-posting rule alleged in the complaint to be unlawful There being no express abandonment of that allegation , this decision assumes it still to be in the case 2 It is unknown if a successor agreement has been negotiated or, if so, it contains these provisions. 215 NLRB No. 58 272 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD assessments, or any other amounts of money due to the Un- ion." Menius continued' that the rule is intended to control "people wanting to sell thing or peddle things on the prem- ises," not union solicitations. Apart from whatever inference might be drawn from this statement of rule 14's intent, the record is silent whether it contemplates or even has been invoked regarding solicitations unrelated to the Union but still protected by Section 7 of the Act. Nor is there evidence that Respondent ever communicated to the employees that union solicitations are exempt from the rule's prohibition; nor evidence of overriding considerations of production or em- ployee discipline to be served by the rule, however applied. Except that which can be divined from its terms, there is no evidence of the purpose and application of rule 15. 2. Analysis Plant Rule 14. Rule 14 prohibits "soliciting . . . on the premises without permission of the Production Manager." Application of the rule is not limited by its terms to working time, for "working time" as that notion is used in the context of no-solicitation rules does not connote all time on company premises, only "the period of time that is spent in the perfor- mance of actual job duties";' nor do its terms exempt solici- tations coming within the scope of Section 7 of the Act. Indeed, a fair reading of the rule suggests a contrary, all- inclusive purport on both counts. It follows that the rule is presumptively improper. Stoddard-Quirk Manufacturing Co., 138 NLRB 615 (1962). See also Hyland Machine Co., 210 NLRB 1063 (1974), WIPO, Inc., 199 NLRB 649 (1972); Gooch Packing, Inc., 187 NLRB 351 (1970); General Indus- tries Electronics Co., 138 NLRB 1371 (1962). The question becomes, then, whether there is evidence overcoming the rule's presumed illegality. There is no evi- dence that it is necessary to production or employee disci- pline, so that defense is out. Stoddard-Quirk Manufacturing Co., supra at 621-622 It is no defense, moreover, that the Union agreed to rule 14 by consenting to its incorporation in bargaining agreements. A union cannot waive the Section 7 solicitation rights of the employees it represents. N.L.R.B. v. Magnavox Company of Tennessee, 414 U.S. 1109 (1974). That leaves Respondent's principal line of defense, namely, Menius' disclaimer that the rule was meant to apply to union solicitations, coupled with an absence of evidence that it has been invoked for that purpose.4 In answer to that defense, there is no evidence that such an exemption ever was com- municated to the employees; and no evidence that such an exemption covers all manner of Section 7 solicitations, not just those which are literally "union." Even resolving the latter imponderable favorably to Respondent, we still have a presumptively unlawful rule which, unknown to the em- ployees, is not enforced in an unlawful manner. Nonenforce- ment does not overcome the adverse presumption. As the Board stated in The Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company, 162 NLRB 1182, 1184 (1967)• [W]e reject the Respondent's argument that the rule could have had no coercive effect since it was not en- 3 Essex International, Inc., 211 NLRB 749 (1974) 4 Respondent's refusal to permit distribution of the union circular, dis- cussed below, was not grounded on rule 14 forced. -It is well established that the mere existence of an unlawful no-solicitation rule makes it susceptible to application to employees and this factor alone tends to coerce, restrain, and interfere with their right to engage in self-organizational activities. See also Leece-Neville Co., 159 NLRB 293, 298 (1966) It must be concluded, therefore, that rule 14 is in violation of Section 8(a)(1).5 Plant Rule 15. While Section 7 is read to bestow upon employees the right to solicit or distribute literature on com- pany premises in certain circumstances, it does not bestow upon them a right to use company bulletin boards or other plant surfaces for the posting of information Nugent Service, Inc., 207 NLRB 158 (1973). The inclusion in the labor agree- ment of rule 15, concerning limited use of company bulletin boards, therefore did not constitute an invalid union waiver of a statutory right within the principle of N.L.R.B. v. Mag- navox Company of Tennessee, supra, but rather an extraction through the bargaining process of a concession Respondent lawfully could have withheld. That being so, there being nothing on the fact of rule 15 indicative of illegality,' and there being no evidence of an improper application of the rule, it is concluded that rule 15 does not violate the Act. B. The Prohibition Against Distributing the Union's Circular 1. The evidence In March 1974 the Union's president, Boyd Young, and its executive board decided to distribute this circular among Respondent's employees: NEWS BULLETIN TO LOCAL 801 MEMBERS FROM BOYD YOUNG-PRESIDENT WE NEED YOU As a member, we need you to help build the Union through your support and understanding Too often members become disinterest- ed and look upon their Union as being something separate from themselves Nothing could be further from the truth This Union or any Union will only be as good as the members make it The policies and practices of this Union are made by the membership-the active membership If this Union has ever missed its target it may be because not enough members made their views known where the final decisions are made-The Union Meeting It would be impossible to satisfy everyone with the decisions that are made but the active member has the opportunity to bung the majority around to his way of thinking . This is how a democratic organization works and it's the best system around Through participation you can make your voice felt not only in this Local but throughout the International Union A PHONY LABEL-"nght to work" Wages are determined at the bargaining table and the stronger the Union, the better the opportunity for improvements The "right-to-work" 5 Mallory Plastics Co., 149 NLRB 1649 (1964), cited by Respondent urging a contrary conclusion, not only is factually distinguishable from the present case in certain respects, but is of doubtful current validity in light of intervening Board decisions 6 The requirement in rule 15 that most notices must be approved by management does not by itself invalidate the rule Cf Gooch Packing, Inc, 187 NLRB 351 (1970). EASTEX INC. 273 law is simply an attempt to weaken the strength of Unions . The mis- leading title of "right -to-work" cannot guarantee anyone a job . It simply weakens the negotiating power of Unions by outlawing provisions in contracts for Union shops. These laws do not improve wages or working conditions but just protect free riders. Free riders are people who take all the benefits of Unions without paying dues. They ride on the dues that members pay to build an organization to protect their rights and improve their way of life. At this time there is a very well organized and financed attempt to place the "right to work" law in our new state constitution. This drive is supported and financed by big xusiness namely the National Right-To-Work Committee and the National Chamber of Commerce. If their attempt is successful, it will more than pay for itself by weakening Unions and improving the edge business has at the bargain- ing table. States that have no "right-to-work" law consistently have higher wages and better working conditions . Texas is well known for its weak laws concerning the working class and the "right-to-work" law would only add insult to injury. If you fail to take action against the "right-to-work" law it may well show up in wages negotiated in the fu- ture. I urge every member to write their state congressman and senator in protest of the "right-to-work" law being incorporated into the state constitution. Write your state representative and state senator and let the delegate know how you feel. POLITICS and INFLATION The Minimum Wage Bill, HR 7935, was vetoed by President Nixon. The President termed the bill as inflationary. The bill would raise the present $1.60 to $2.00 per hour for most covered workers. It seems almost unbelievable that the President could term $2.00 per hour as inflationary and at the same time remain silent about oil com- panies profits ranging from 56% to 280%. It also seems distrubing , that after the price of gasoline has increased to over 50 cents a gallon, that the fuel crisis is beginning to disappear. If the price of gasoline ever reaches 70 cents a gallon you probably couldn't find a closed filling station or empty pump in the Northern Hemisphere. Congress is now preceding with a second minimum wage bill that hope- fully the President will sign into law. At $1.60 per hour you could work 40 hours a week, 52 weeks a year and never earn enough money to sup- port a family. As working men and women we must defeat out enemies and elect our friends. If you haven' t registered to vote, please do so today. FOOD FOR THOUGHT In Union there is strength , justice, and moderation: In disunion, nothing but an alternating humility and insolence. COMING TOGETHER WAS A BEGINNING STAYING TOGETHER IS PROGRESS WORKING TOGETHER MEANS SUCCESS THE PERSON WHO STANDS NEUTRAL, STANDS FOR NOTHING! On about March 26 Hugh Terry, an employee of Respond- ent and a vice president of the Union, asked Respondent's assistant personnel director, Herbert George, if it would be all right to distribute the circular in "clock alley" at the plant, enabling each employee to get a copy upon clocking in or out.' Terry explained that the Union preferred this proce- dure to mailing because of the high postage rates.8 George replied that he doubted Respondent would allow the Union to "hand out propaganda like that," but that he would check with "higher management." George pres- ently did check with Leonard Menius, the personnel director, who confirmed that it would not be permitted. George conveyed that message to Terry on about April 1. He did not give Terry any reason for Respondent's position. On April 22, Union President Young, accompanied by Terry and another employee, raised the matter with George. Young asked if it would be permissible for employees to distribute the circular, on nonworking time, anywhere on Respondent's premises-if not in clock alley, then on an outside walkway or in the parking lot.' George initially responded "no," then said he would be glad to "doublecheck" with Menius, which he did. Menius was of the same view, and George informed Young that permission would not, be granted. George added, "We feel that you have other ways to com- municate with your membership." Young testified that the Union requested permission for the sake of its "good relationship" with Respondent, not out of any sense that permission was required by the labor agreement or otherwise. The reason for the circu- lar, he testified, was this: We were going into negotiations, and . . . we was trying to reorganize our group into a stronger group. We were trying to get members, ' people that were working there who were nonmembers, and try to motivate or strengthen the conviction of our mem- bers, and it was to organize a little. Respondent concedes there was no requirement in the labor agreement that permission be obtained, expressly disavowing the applicability of plant rule 14 to the situa- tion. Menius testified that he would not have withheld consent, in clock alley or elsewhere, had the circular been confined to the material under the "We Need You" and "Food for Thought" captions. He objected to the balance of the document, however, testifying, "I didn't see any way in which that was related to our association with the Union."" In times past, Respondent has distributed literature con- cerning its periodic safety contests from a table in clock alley. The record also tells of instances when politicians and an auto dealer distributed literature on the premises, but Menius in- 8 The record suggests that the Union's usual past practice was to use the mails when making large-scale distributions, and that Respondent unfail- ingly provided names and addresses of unit employees for this purpose. 9 George testified: "It was testified here earlier today that a request was made for employees to pass it out. I did not get that impression. My impres- sion was that Boyd Young, himself, wanted to pass out the material, for whatever that is worth." George's "impression" notwithstanding, Young is credited that his request was couched in terms of employees. Young himself is a longtime employee of Respondent, on leave of absence to serve as union 7 Clock alley is a passageway 6 or 7 feet wide, flanked on either side by president. administrative offices. In addition to time clocks, the area contains an em- 10 Further to this point, Respondent notes that while the commentary in ployee bulletin board and benches and chairs for those waiting to transact the circular under "Politics and Inflation" deplores the presidential veto of business in the offices. Clock alley is physically discrete from the production a bill raising the federal minimum hourly wage to $2.00, the lowest hourly areas of the plant. wage among Respondent's employees is $3.68. 274 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD sists that Respondent never approved of those activities and stopped them upon detection. In addition, Respondent's supervisors have solicited in the plant in furtherance of charity (United Appeals) and bond (U.S. Savings) drives, and a campaign protesting the expansion of Big Thicket National Park. This apparently consisted of seeking signatures on pledge cards or petitions; there is no evidence that literature was distributed. Finally, information is posted on a bulletin board in clock alley telling the employees how to participate in the Time-Life Books program at a reduced rate." 2. Analysis12 The Board stated in McDonnell Douglas Corporation, 210 NLRB 280 (1974): As in any case which concerns an employer's restraint of employees' efforts to distribute literature upon their employer's plant premises, the first question we must answer is whether the distribution is pertinent to a mat- ter which is encompassed by Section 7 of the Act. If that pertinence does not exist, there are no restraints in the Act on the employer's power to ban distribution. Menius, although having no objection to distribution of two sections of the Union's circular, prohibited distribution because he "didn't see any way in which that [the other two sections] was related to our association with the Union." That articulation is not the true test of the requisite Section 7 tie-in. Rather, to quote from G & W Electric Specialty Company, 154 NLRB 1136, 1137-38 (1965): [T]he protection afforded by Section 7 is not strictly confined to activities which are immediately related to the employment relationship or working conditions. ... [A]lthough the mandatory subjects of collective bar- gaining designated in Sections 8(d) and 9(a) relate only to working conditions and the employment relationship, Section 7 provides that employees shall have the right, inter alia, to engage in "concerted activities for the pur- pose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection." [Emphasis supplied.] To construe this provi- sion as protecting only activities directly and immedi- ately involving the employment relationship would therefore be to read the phrase "or other mutual aid or protection" out of the Act. Illustrative of the reach of this reasoning, the Board found unlawful an employer's ban against on-premises implementa- tion by its employees of their union's plan to collect money for grape workers attempting to organize in Delano, Cali- fornia (General Electric Co., 169 NLRB 1101 1968); a circuit court found unlawful the discharge of a union president/em- ployee for promoting an employee resolution condemning the employer's posture relative to a strike of another employer's employees [N.L.R.B. v. Peter Cailler Kohler Swiss Chocolates 11 Respondent is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Time, Incorporated. 12 Although most of the cases cited by Respondent on this issue are not mentioned in this decision, they have been considered . If not distinguishable from the present case in their fundamental facts, they embody circuit court repudiations of Board law . Board law, not that of the circuits, is binding in this proceeding. E.g., Bricklayers Local Union No. 1, 209 NLRB 820, fn. 1 (1974). Co., 130 F.2d 503 (C.A. 2, 1942)]; and another circuit court noted that "mutual aid or protection " in Section 7 includes the "appearance of employee representatives before legisla- tive committees." Bethlehem Shipbuilding Corp. v. N.L.R.B., 114 F.2d 930, 937 (C.A. 1, 1940). Looking at the two sections of the Union 's circular on which Menius based Respondent's refusal, one dealt with Texas's so-called right-to-work law, commenting among other things: The "right-to-work" law is simply an attempt to weaken the strength of Unions.. . . It simply weakens the nego- tiating power of Unions. . . . If you fail to take action against the "right-to-work" law it may well show up in wages negotiated in the future. I urge every member to write their state congressman and senator in protest of the "right-to-work" law being incorporated into the state constitution. Union security being central to the union concept of strength through solidarity, and being moreover a mandatory subject of bargaining in other than right-to-work states, it is plain that this commentary is "pertinent to a matter which is en- compassed by Section 7 of the Act" as the Board and courts see it. Bethlehem Shipbuilding Corp. v. N.L.R. B., supra, indi- cates that this conclusion is in no way negated by the cir- cular's advocacy of political means to the desired end. The other section on which Menius' refusal was based, dealing with the Federal minimum wage law and inflation and urging the election of legislators favorable to a higher minimum wage, also is pertinent in terms of Section 7, even though Respondent's employees receive well over the sought- after minimum wage. The minimum wage inevitably influ- ences wage levels derived from collective bargaining, even those far above the minimum . Beyond that, as the Board observed in General Electric Co., supra at 1103, concern by Respondent's employees for the plight of other employees "might gain support for them at some future time when they might have a dispute with their employer." So it is that the sections of the Union 's circular cited by Respondent to support its refusal were entitled to those distri- bution privileges the act allows , no less than the circular's other portions . But even if they were not, even if Respondent were correct that only portions of the circular bore Section 7 pertinence, Respondent would not thereby have been justi- fied in denying its distribution . Thus, in Samsonite Corpora- tion, 206 NLRB 343 , the Board adopted the decision of Ad- ministrative Law Judge Taplitz containing this statement: The fact that some of the articles in the newsletter con- tained gratuitous remarks or "social comment" matters does not detract from the conclusion that the distribu- tion . . . was a concerted activity [protected by Section 7]. It being established that the Union's circular was entitled to those distribution privileges allowed by the Act, the ques- tion remains whether Respondent, by banning distribution by employees anywhere on its premises, impinged upon those privileges in violation of Section 8(a)(1). The Board, recogniz- ing inherent differences between solicitations and distribu- tions, permits greater restrictions on Section 7 distributions EASTEX INC. than solicitations. While a no-solicitation rule generally must be limited to working time, a no-distribution rule properly can extend to working areas even on nonworking time. A no-distribution rule that obtains on nonworking times in non- working areas, however, is presumptively invalid. See gener- ally Stoddard-Quirk Manufacturing Co., 138 NLRB 615 (1962). As previously noted, the term "working time" for this purpose "connotes the period of time that is spent in the performance of actual job duties, which would not include [for instance] time allotted for lunch and break periods." Essex International, Inc., 211 NLRB 749 (1974). The term "working areas" embraces only those portions of a plant where production tasks actually are performed and does not include separate time-clock areas (Massey-Ferguson, Inc., 211 NLRB 487 (1974)), much less parking lots and other areas outside the plant. It is clear, notwithstanding the greater latitude given no- distribution rules, that Respondent's refusal to permit distri- bution of the Union's circular anywhere on the premises-in clock alley, the outer walkway, or the parking lot-went beyond working time and working areas, and so violated Section 8(a)(1) absent special circumstances. Of the latter, there is neither argument nor proof." CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. By maintaining a plant-rule contract provision which prohibits employees from soliciting during nonworking time concerning matters relating to the exercise of their Section 7 rights, Respondent has violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. 2. By prohibiting employees from distributing literature on nonworking time in nonworking areas concerning matters relating to the exercise of their Section 7 rights, Respondent has violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. 3. These unfair labor practices affect commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 4. Respondent did not otherwise violate the Act in the manner alleged. Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law, and the entire record," and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I hereby issue the following recommended: 13 "Accordingly," as the Supreme Court said in N.L.R.B. v. Magnavox Company of Tennessee, supra, "this is not the occasion to balance the availa- bility of alternative channels of communications against a legitimate em- ployer business justification for barring or limiting inplant communica- tions." In concluding that the prohibition against distributing the Union's circular violated the Act, it is deemed unnecessary to consider the charity and bond drives, the campaign concerning Big Thicket National Park, Time-Life Books, and the distributions from clock alley about Respondent's safety contests. Disparate treatment is relevant only in the case of a colorably lawful no-distribution rule, or to show that an employer's stated justifica- tions for a presumptively invalid rule are pretextuous. Further, the charity and bond drives, the Big Thicket campaign, and Time-Life Books were more akin to solicitations than distributions, so would not show disparate treat- ment in any event. Cf. Stoddard-Quirk Manufacturing Co., supra at 620, fn. 6. 14 Errors in the transcript are hereby noted and corrected. 15 All outstanding motions inconsistent with this recommended Order hereby are denied. In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by ORDER15 275 Respondent, Eastex Incorporated, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall:, 1. Cease and desist from: a. Maintaining a plant rule or contract provision which prohibits employees from soliciting during nonworking time concerning matters relating to the exercise of their Section 7 rights. b. Prohibiting employees from distributing literature on nonworking time in nonworking areas concerning matters relating to the exercise of their Section 7 rights. 2. Take the following affirmative action to effectuate the policies of the Act: a. Post at its plant copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix."" Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 23, after being duly signed by an authorized representative of Respondent, shall be posted by Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to em- ployees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to insure that said notices are not al- tered, defaced, or covered by any other material. b. Notify the Regional Director for Region 23, in writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps Re- spondent has taken to comply herewith. That portion of the complaint found without merit is dis- missed. Section 102.46 of the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the findings, conclusions, 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. 16 In the event 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 read "Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board." APPENDIX NOTICE To EMPLOYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government The trial held in Beaumont, Texas, on July 23, 1974, in which we participated and had a chance to give evidence, resulted in a decision that we had committed certain unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, and this notice is posted pursuant to that decision. Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, gives all employees the following rights: To organize themselves To form, join, or suport unions To bargain as a group through a representative they choose To act together for collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection To refrain from any or all such activities. 276 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD In recognition of these rights, we hereby notify our em- WE WILL NOT prohibit employees from distributing lit- ployees that : erature on nonworking time in nonworking areas con- WE WILL NOT maintain a plant rule or contract provi - cerning matters relating to the exercise of their Section sion which prohibits employees from soliciting during 7 rights. nonworking time concerning matters relating to the ex- EASTEX INCORPORATED ercise of their Section 7 rights.