Stevens Graphics, Inc.

STEVENS GRAPHICS, INC. 457 Stevens Graphics, Inc. and Graphics Communication International Union, Local 121C. Case 10–CA– 33719 June 30, 2003 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN BATTISTA AND MEMBERS LIEBMAN AND SCHAUMBER On December 11, 2002, Administrative Law Judge Lawrence W. Cullen issued the attached decision. The General Counsel filed exceptions and a supporting brief, and the Respondent filed an answering brief. The National Labor Relations Board has delegated its authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. The Board has considered the decision and the record in light of the exceptions and briefs and has decided to affirm the judge’s rulings, findings,1 and conclusions and to adopt the recommended Order. ORDER The recommended Order of the administrative law judge is adopted and the complaint is dismissed. Gregory Powell, Esq., for the General Counsel. James W. Wimberly Jr., Esq., for the Respondent. DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE LAWRENCE W. CULLEN, Administrative Law Judge. This case was heard before me in Birmingham, Alabama, on Octo- ber 25, 2002. The complaint is based on a charge filed in this case by Graphics Communication International Union, Local 121C (Local 121C or the Union). The complaint as amended at the hearing alleges that Respondent, Stevens Graphics, Inc. (the Respondent or the Company), violated Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the National Labor Relations Act (the Act). The Respondent has by its answer, amended at the hearing, denied the commis- sion of any violations of the Act, and has also raised a 10(b) defense and moved in the alternative that this matter should be deferred to arbitration. After due consideration of the trial memorandums filed by the General Counsel and Respondent and their arguments on the record in the case I make the following FINDINGS OF FACT A. The Business of Respondent The complaint alleges, Respondent admits, and I find that at all times material, Respondent has been a Georgia Corporation, 1 The General Counsel has excepted to some of the judge’s credibil- ity findings. The Board’s established policy is not to overrule an ad- ministrative law judge’s credibility resolutions unless the clear prepon- derance of all the relevant evidence convinces us that they are incorrect. Standard Dry Wall Products, 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd. 188 F.2d 362 (3d Cir. 1951). We have carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing the findings. with an office and place of business in Birmingham, Alabama, where it has been engaged in the business of commercial print- ing, that during the past 12-month period, Respondent in con- ducting its business operation, purchased and received at its Birmingham, Alabama facility goods and materials valued in excess of $50,000 directly from suppliers located outside the State of Alabama and has been an employer engaged in com- merce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act. B. The Labor Organization The complaint alleges, Respondent admits, and I find that at all times material, the Union has been a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. C. The Appropriate Unit The complaint alleges, Respondent admits, and I find that at all times material herein, the following employees of Respon- dent have constituted a unit appropriate for collective bargain- ing within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act: Employees of the Company’s pressroom, preparatory and maintenance departments. I also find based on the evidence in the hearing the Union is the recognized and exclusive collective-bargaining representa- tive of the bargaining unit employees and that the Union and the Company have been parties to a succession of collective- bargaining agreements, the most recent of which is for the pe- riod from April 1, 2001, to March 31, 2005. D. The Alleged Unfair Labor Practices The complaint alleges that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act. At the hearing the General Counsel contended that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by interfering with the Section 7 rights of the bargaining unit employees to post union-related notices on a union bulletin board in the pressroom. The General Counsel does not cite any case authority for the position that there is a Section 7 right to post union-related notices on the bulletin board. Respondent contends that there is no Section 7 right to post union-related notices on the union bulletin board but that any such rights must be supported by contract rights negotiated by the parties or by the past practice of the parties. Respondent contends that several years ago it agreed to and did set up a bulletin board in the pressroom for the Union to post notices to employees, but that it did not agree to an unfettered right of the Union to post any type of notices on the bulletin board. Rather it contends it retained the right to monitor the bulletin board to ensure that no controversial material or material that degrades the Company is posted. In his opening statement General Counsel posed the issue as “is it a violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (5) when the Respon- dent censors union related communications and union related postings by requiring and directing Union representatives to remove postings on a Union designated bulletin board” in vio- lation of the bargaining members’ Section 7 rights. This case involves the union bulletin board in the pressroom. There is also a company bulletin board in the pressroom. There are two other bulletin boards used by employees. One is in the pre- 339 NLRB No. 64 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 458 pressroom and the other is in the maintenance department. There are no violations alleged with respect to these other two bulletin boards. Only union-related materials are posted on the Local 121C bulletin board in the pressroom. The General Counsel contends that newspaper clippings, letters from union representatives, notices of union meetings, and resignations or elections of union representatives are posted on Local 121C’s bulletin board and that in the past bargaining unit members and union officials have been permitted to post union-related in- formation on 121C’s bulletin board without restriction. Gen- eral Counsel contends that things changed in May 2002, when the Respondent’s supervisors and agents “began to censor, scrutinize, in essence reject, edit, and order that union-related materials be removed from 121C’s bulletin board.” Union Local 121C President Charles Watt was ordered to remove union-related postings from the Union’s bulletin board in the pressroom. The General Counsel contends that these actions by Respondent were a material change in the terms and conditions of employment of the bargaining unit members and that this is a clear violation of not only Section 8(a)(1), but also Section 8(a)(5) of the Act. In support of its case the General Counsel called Charles Watt, the Local 121C president. Watt is a 6-year employee of Respondent. He was involved in the negotiations for the 2001– 2005 contract. At that time he was vice president of the Union. He has also served as a steward. Watt testified that prior to May 2002, union-related materials were posted on the union bulletin board without questioning by Respondent as to their content such as correspondence from the International officers, union-related news clippings from the union newsletter and notices of union meetings. Some of the items were posted for days, weeks, or in excess of 6 months. Bargaining unit mem- bers may also post material so long as it pertains to the Union and have done so without objections by the Company. He was never required to obtain permission or prior approval for post- ing the union-related material. The complaint filed in this case as amended at the hearing asserts that on or about May 7, 2002, and continuing to date, Respondent has prohibited the Union from posting certain ma- terials on a union bulletin board at Respondent’s Birmingham, Alabama facility, and has “refused to allow the posting of pro- tected concerted materials on the Union’s bulletin board located in or near the Pressroom.” A letter from Union President Watt to Plant Manager Alan Simmons dated June 21, 2001, refers to the manning of press 90 which has been a matter of dispute between the Union and the Company. Watt testified that prior to May 2002, any union-related material could be placed on the bulletin board and no questions were raised concerning its con- tent and he was never required to obtain company approval prior to posting material on the bulletin board. The June 21st letter was placed on the bulletin board without incident. A letter dated July 18, 2001, from Watt to Simmons concerns an arbitrator’s decision regarding the electronic prepress work. This letter was also posted without prior approval or incident. A letter dated September 26, 2001, from Watt to Duane Ac- kerman, chairman and chief executive of Bell South Enter- prises, concerned an arbitration award won by the Union with respect to members of management doing bargaining unit work. Bell South Enterprises is the major customer of the Company which prints the telephone directories for Bell South. In his letter Watt states that Respondent has “chosen to mislead the bargaining unit in prepress” and further asserts that then Plant Manager Fred Ondrako threatened to fire him and other bar- gaining unit employees. This letter was posted and not ques- tioned concerning its comments but was questioned because Watt had used the Company’s copier and paper to produce it. Watt recopied the letter using an outside source and it was re- posted. A newsletter by the International Union discussing a Board ruling in favor of another Graphics Communication In- ternational Union local in Evansville, Indiana, regarding a work jurisdiction case item was posted without incident. In a letter dated April 25, 2002, regarding “Manning on Press 90” from Watt to Simmons, Watt contended the parties had bargained to impasse over this issue. This letter was posted without inci- dent. In a letter dated June 14, 2002, from Watt to Simmons regarding the “Manning of Press 90” and the history of ex- changes of proposals by the Company and the Union, Watt contended that the parties were at an impasse regarding this issue. Simmons reviewed this letter and did not permit Watt to post it. In a letter dated July 2, 2002, from Simmons to Watt regarding “Crewing of Press 90,” the Company informed the Union, of its intention to implement “its Final Proposal.” Watt was not allowed to post this letter. In a letter dated July 10, 2002, from Watt to Simmons regarding press 90, Watt states that the Company’s assertion that it will implement manning “rather than allow the arbitration process to settle this matter is proof of the lack of cooperation Local 121C has received in this matter.” Watt was not allowed to post this letter. In a memo to Local 121C from Watt dated August 14, 2002, Watt asserted that there has been a resolution of NLRB charges relating to posting materials on the union bulletin board and that “the Board is for the posting of union related material and informing the union body.” This memo also states, “Please refrain from leaving your work area to read this information, read it on breaks and before or after your shift.” He was not allowed to post this memo. A letter from Watt to Simmons dated May 3, 2002, regarding, “Code of Conduct or Harassment Policy” reads as follows: Two days ago a member of management while working in the Pre-Press area stated that he would like to cut the fingers off of anyone that threw away an original file. This threat was very inappropriate considering all persons working in this area have begged for training for over four years. This threat also shows a lack of respect for co-workers and is also unac- ceptable. Local 121C would like for you to consider man- agement as part of ALL EMPLOYEES and investigate this matter. This letter remained on the bulletin board for only a short pe- riod of time and Watt was then called to the office of Supervi- sor Andy Burridge who directed him to remove it. Watt com- plied and removed the letter from the bulletin board. On cross-examination, Watt testified that the items which he was allowed to post on the bulletin board were not controver- sial, confrontational, or hostile. The newspaper clipping in- volved another company. He was not permitted to post the STEVENS GRAPHICS, INC. 459 June 14, 2002 letter by Simmons who reviewed it. This was submitted to Simmons two times by Watt. Simmons initially denied Watt’s request to post it and on the second occasion told Watt he did not have time to review it. Watt then took this letter back from Simmons and did not again submit it for re- view. Watt testified he was never told that any of the materials he was not permitted to post on the bulletin board were inaccu- rate or confrontational. Watt testified that he was not permitted to post the July 10, 2002 letter by the Human Resources Safety Supervisor Dennis Adams and by Simmons who told him it had inaccuracies in it and that it was Watt’s opinion. Watt denied that either Adams or Simmons offered to sit down with him to attempt to modify the letter to make it acceptable. In that letter, he accused the Company of regressive bargaining. Watt testi- fied that when he was denied the opportunity to post materials on the bulletin board. He was not told that he had violated a rule. Plant Manager Simmons testified that the first disagreement regarding posting on the union bulletin board occurred in late January 2002, regarding an unfair labor practice charge against the Company filed January 25, 2002, which was posted on the union bulletin board in the pressroom. He told Watt it was not appropriate. Watt agreed to take it down. Simmons contended at the hearing that the posting had not been approved by the Company and was confrontational, citing alleged threats by management to the Union. Simmons told Watt that in the fu- ture he should ask him for permission to post anything that was of a confrontational nature, or deviated from their standard practices. A letter dated February 6, 2002, from Union Attor- ney Thomas D. Allison to Watt discusses the decision of an arbitrator in a case involving the Company and the Union. In this letter Allison asserts that the Union has been upheld on virtually every item of contention in the case involving bargain- ing unit work. This letter was also posted without approval by the Company. Simmons then met with Watt in a meeting at- tended by Department Manager Burridge and Union Represen- tative George Shack. Simmons told Watt that the posting did not conform to the practices of the parties, was controversial, was an ongoing issue and specified individuals and their employment status. Simmons told Watt to remove it and Watt agreed. Simmons at that time, again told Watt to seek his or his manager’s approval for future postings. In a letter dated April 25, 2002, from Watt to Simmons, Watt asserts that the Com- pany has made no effort to meet a minimum manning require- ment and asserts that there is an impasse in bargaining. Watt requested permission to post this letter from his manager who sought and received Simmons’s authorization to do so. Sim- mons testified he did not consider anything in this letter to be derogatory or adversarial. On May 6, 2002, Simmons received the letter dated May 3, 2002, from Watt concerning the code of conduct or harassment policy. The letter accused a member of management of stating that he would like to cut the fingers off of anyone that threw away an original file. On May 7, Sim- mons was informed by Department Managers Burridge and Jack Sollenberger that this letter was on the union bulletin board in the pressroom. He instructed these managers to meet with Watt and inform him this was not appropriate for the bul- letin board. The Company was in the beginning stage of inves- tigating the allegations in this letter. His understanding made known to Watt was that inappropriate postings by Watt should be removed and Watt should seek approval prior to posting in the future. A letter dated April 30, 2002, from the Acting Re- gional Director for Region 10 of the Board to Simmons in- formed him that the charges in Stevens Graphics, Inc., Cases 10–CA–-33564 and 10–CA–33565 had been withdrawn. The charges in that case asserted that the Company was prohibiting the posting of copies of unfair labor practice charges on the bulletin boards. On May 9, 2002, Watt posted a copy of the charge in the instant case which he had filed on May 8, 2002, which alleged that since May 7, 2002, the Company had re- fused to allow the posting of protected concerted materials on the Union’s bulletin board in or near the pressroom. At Sim- mons’ instructions, Department Managers Burridge and Sollen- berger met with Watt and informed him that this was not con- sistent with approved postings in the plant and instructed him to remove the charge from the bulletin board. A letter dated June 8, 2002, from Watt to Bell South CEO Duane Ackerman states: Local 121C G.C.I.U. is currently trying to negotiate manning for PRESS 90, STEVENS GRAPHICS BIRMINGHAM. This press has had eight person crews scheduled from the start although more than eight have been used on many occasions. We are having difficulty negotiating for we are now being told that six persons are billed to this press and two persons are billed as extras on the floor. This is being done by management altering the floor data records that the MEN IN CHARGE are listing as their crews. A review of the history of this press will show that eight persons are needed to protect the invest- ment BELL SOUTH has made in this equipment, for it moves a tremendous amount of paper in a very short pe- riod of time. Press 90 prints 144 pages of four color at speeds of over forty thousand per hour. Experienced pressmen are informing you it should not be ran [sic] with the same number of persons used on PRESS 80 WHICH RUNS 64 PAGES OF FOUR COLOR AT LESS SPEED. The automated features of this press are to assist a person in his or her job, not to replace them. We are currently negotiating with persons experienced in creative billing, not printing. This is unfair to LOCAL 121C and to the investment BELL SOUTH and its STOCK HOLDERS have made in this press. PRESS 90 is one of the finest directory presses in the industry and LOCAL 121C is asking for a crew that can help you use it to it’s full potential. [Emphasis added.] This letter was posted by Watt without permission. Simmons met again with Watt and instructed him to remove it which he did. At the hearing Simmons contended that the letter alleged fraudulent alteration of company records and implied unethical billing practices. A letter from Simmons to Watt dated July 2, 2002, regarding disagreement of the parties concerning the crewing of press 90 contains the Company’s position with respect to the situation. In this letter he notes, “the unfortunate situation of high absen- teeism in the Pressroom.” He also notes, “the Union declined DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 460 to respond to the Company’s proposal or the Company’s nu- merous attempts to schedule another meeting.” He also states, “You further attempted to circumvent the grievance proce- dure.” The letter also states that the Company intends to im- plement its final proposal due to the lack of mutual agreement. Watt asked Simmons for approval to post this letter and a letter dated July 10 from Watt to Simmons. Simmons denied his request and contended at the hearing that the posting of both letters would not be consistent with the practice of the parties. He specifically told Watt that the material in the July 10 letter contained confrontational and inaccurate material and that the claim that the Company had engaged in regressive bargaining was not factual. He did not specify any problems with the con- tent of the July 2 letter. He testified further that he discussed with Watt the reasons why the letter of July 10 was inappropri- ate and caused Safety Representative Dennis Adams to help Watt in rewording the letter so as to make it acceptable. Watt then approached Simmons again and said he was not going to reword the letter. On cross-examination Simmons testified that Respondent’s operating instruction outlines the current practice of requiring preapproval for postings. This policy requires serial numbering on postings and the maintenance of an annual log and the as- signment of a posting period. Simmons acknowledged that none of these three requirements are met. He testified that supervisors routinely observe the bulletin boards and if they see something that is not appropriate they bring it to “someone’s attention.” He testified there has not been “a history of having a lot of confrontational or inappropriate material posted, but when there has been its been dealt with.” Simmons has never issued a written corrective action to Union President Watt or disciplined him for altering or posting or removing anything on bulletin boards. He contended at the hearing that inappropriate or confrontational material or material that is disruptive must be removed from the bulletin board by either the employee or the Company. Neither the Company nor the Union have offered any proposals in negotiations to change work rules or operating instructions regarding the bulletin boards. On rebuttal by the General Counsel, Union President Watt testified that prior to the date of the hearing he has never seen this operating instruc- tion and no supervisor has ever told him he could not post ma- terials as a result of Respondent’s Exhibit 2. Jerry Langham, who is currently a finishing services supervi- sor with Respondent, was formerly a union shop chairman from 1984 to 1988 with Local Union 540, which represents the bind- ery and shipping department employees. He testified that the Company met with both unions jointly in 1987, concerning bulletin boards. The Company agreed to purchase bulletin boards with locked glass doors for the Unions to have a place to post notices and the union representatives of both unions agreed and there was an operating instruction prepared and Local 121C was part of this. He testified that Local 540 posted their pen- sion plan on their bulletin board with permission and never sought to post anything confidential or any unfair labor prac- tices charges or derogatory statements. He testified that it was discussed at the meeting that the human resources manager would have to approve all postings and the unions agreed to this. The negotiations notes show Larry Best, Tommy Pitts, Mike Capps, and James Gant were all Local 121C members who attended this meeting and agreed to this procedure. Tony Pitts also testified on behalf of the Company. He has been a supervisor for about 2 years. He was chapel chairman of the maintenance department for Local 121C from 1982 to 1989. He recalls that there was some controversy about bulletin boards, which was resolved by an agreement. He was not pre- sent at the meeting as he was on vacation but became aware of it in 1987 and Scott Rapp (who was then the human resources representative), sent out an agreement to be reviewed concern- ing the union bulletin board policy. The policy permitted the posting by the Union on the union bulletin board of general notices such as union meetings, Graphics Communication In- ternational Union (GCIU) fliers, pension statements, and things of that nature. Any controversial or derogatory items needed to be cleared through human resources before they were posted. The Union agreed to this. Respondent called Fred Ondrako on its behalf. Ondrako was formerly employed by the Company. He began his employ- ment as a pressroom supervisor in 1982. He became produc- tion manager in 1992 and plant manager in 1995 or 1996. He retired in March 2000. Ondrako testified there was an operat- ing instruction manual that contained an operating instruction pertaining to the posting of items on bulletin boards. When Ondrako came to work in 1982, there was no policy or organ- ized way of posting on bulletin boards and the operating in- struction was developed to formalize the method of posting. The Company met with the union representatives and informed them of the new policy and the Unions agreed. The Company gave out a new policy and procedures which replaced the oper- ating instruction manual but he does not believe it is in there. During his tenure the Union did not challenge the work rule regarding notices or the operating instruction. He testified further that there was an occasion that a union representative wanted to post a notice and he told the union representative this was not in compliance with the policy and the union representa- tive removed the item. He testified that normally postings were cleared with the human resources department. Analysis, Preliminary Issues Respondent contends that the employer’s restrictions on posting have existed for a considerable period of time and cer- tainly beyond the 6-month limitation period for filing of an unfair labor practice charge under the Act and that the allega- tions are barred by Section 10(b) of the Act. I find, however, that the evidence is not dispositive of this issue particularly as the alleged violations of the Act are continuing. I accordingly reject this defense. Respondent contends also that it is willing to allow this dis- pute to be processed through the grievance and arbitration pro- cedure and that this case should accordingly be deferred to arbitration, citing Collyer Insulated Wire, 192 NLRB 837, 77 (1971); National Radio Co., 198 NLRB 527 (1972); United Technologies Corp., 268 NLRB 557 (1984). However, I find deferral is inappropriate in this case which alleges violations of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by the Respondent’s restriction of postings on the bulletin board. The April 1, 2001, through March 31, 2005 labor agreement of the parties does not address STEVENS GRAPHICS, INC. 461 the issue of postings on the bulletin board by the Union. Thus, there is no assurance that the alleged Section 7 rights of the employees are covered in the contract. In United States Steel Corp., 223 NLRB 1246, 1247 (1976), the Board held that under Collyer, deferral is dependent on the express language of the contract and noted that in that case there were no provisions in the labor agreement relating to distribution of Section 7 litera- ture. The Board thus refused to defer to the parties grievance- arbitration procedure. Analysis of the Merits The facts of this case are not in substantial dispute. In 1987, the Company met with representatives of both of its Unions and advised them it would institute a bulletin board policy for post- ings for the Company and the Unions. The Company would maintain a bulletin board for its postings and the Unions would be given bulletin boards for their postings. Local 121C’s bulle- tin board was in an area in the pressroom, which is the room in which most of its bargaining unit members work and all em- ployees pass by this area as they come to and leave work. The Company also maintained its bulletin boards in this area. Other bulletin boards for posting by the bindery employees and for miscellaneous postings of various kinds by employees were posted in other areas of the plant. Both Unions agreed to the Company’s decision to purchase bulletin boards. There was no written agreement. However, the Company updated its operat- ing instructions and work rules in 1988 relative to bulletin boards and required that postings were to be approved by the human resources department with various requirements out- lined in the operating instructions. As noted in the testimony of former Plant Manager Ondrako and current Plant Manager Simmons, items were posted on bulletin boards without signifi- cant dispute over the years. Ondrako and Simmons testified that on occasion they removed materials from the Union Local 121C’s bulletin board, which they regarded as inappropriate without challenge by Local 121C officials. It is undisputed that the Company did not adhere to the various conditions and re- quirements of its posting policies set out in its operating in- structions and that the work rules and operating instructions were not specifically sent to the Unions, but were available in various areas of the plant. The General Counsel contends that Union Local 121C posted various items without restrictions and that there is therefore a past practice permitting the Union to post various items without challenge. The General Counsel’s only witness was President Watt who candidly acknowledged he has only been an employee for 6 years. He also testified he posted controversial items or opinions without challenge. The General Counsel contends that Respondent has violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by interfering with the employees Section 7 right to maintain a union bulletin board and be permitted to post union materials thereon without scrutiny. There is no statutory right of unions or employees to post no- tices or otherwise use bulletin boards on an employer’s prem- ises, Eastex Inc., 215 NLRB 271, 272 (1974), enf. as modified 556 F.2d 1280 (5th Cir. 1977), and affd. 437 U.S. 556 (1978). In Special Machine & Engineering, Inc., 247 NLRB 884 (1980), the Board adopted the administrative law judge’s deci- sion in which he stated: The right to post material on an employer’s bulletin boards may arise out of a collective-bargaining agreement. To the extent that the grant by an employer in a collective-bargaining agreement of the right to utilization of bulletin boards consti- tutes a concession, an employer may define the parameters of its concession and may insist upon the imposition of limita- tions, restrictions, and regulations on such rights. In Special Machine as in the instant case there was no provi- sion in the collective-bargaining agreement granting employees or the Union the right to post items on the bulletin board. The judge then proceeded to examine the past practice of the par- ties. The past practice of the parties in the case before me does not support the General Counsel’s assertion that the Respon- dent has accorded the Union the unchallenged right to post materials on the bulletin boards without scrutiny. Rather as former Union Chapel Chairman Pitts testified, postings on the union bulletin boards were generally limited to notices of meet- ings and changes in union representatives but no controversial material was posted by his Union. The testimony of Ondrako and Simmons supports Respondent’s position that it has main- tained the right to limit postings of controversial matters such as the filing of the unfair labor practice charge and the postings restricted by managers in this case which are controversial in nature and degrade the Employer. In Overnite Transportation Co., 307 NLRB 666, 674 (1992), the Board held that the em- ployer had a reserved right to monitor the contents of all post- ings to ensure they did not contain degrading or inflammatory material. In Western Summit Flexible Packaging, 310 NLRB 45, 54 (1993), no violation of the Act by the employer was found for its refusal to permit the posting of an unfair labor practice charge. In the instant case the unfair labor practice charge and the letter sent by the union official to the plant man- ager accusing a “member of management threatening to cut off any employees’ fingers for deleting an original file” and the letter regarding alleged creative billing clearly are controversial and inflammatory and were lawfully restricted by the employer. I find the General Counsel has not established that there was a past practice of permitting the Union to post whatever it desires without scrutiny from the Respondent. I also find there is no statutory right to post notices on an employer’s bulletin boards. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(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. Respondent did not violate the Act by its restriction of postings by the Union on the union bulletin board on Respon- dent’s premises. DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 462 On the above findings of fact and conclusions of law, and the entire record, I issue the following recommended1 1 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec.102.46 of the Board’s Rules and Regulations, the findings, conclusions, and recommended Order shall, as provided in Sec. 102.48 of the Rules, be adopted by the ORDER The complaint is dismissed. Board and all objections to them shall be deemed waived for all pur- poses.