Page Avjet, Inc.

444 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Page Avjet, Incorporated and International Associa- tion of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO and James R. Chapman. Cases 12- CA-10277 and 12-CA-10363 31 January 1986 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN DOTSON AND MEMBERS DENNIS AND BABSON On 29 July 1983 Administrative Law Judge Robert A. Gritta issued the attached decision. The Respondent and the General Counsel filed excep- tions and supporting briefs, and the Respondent filed a brief in opposition to the General Counsel's exceptions. The National Labor Relations Board has delegat- ed 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, and conclusions,' as modified, and to adopt the recom- mended Order. We agree with the judge that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by promulgating and maintaining an unlawfully broad no-solici- tation/no-distribution rule. In finding the rule in- valid, the judge relied on TRW Bearings, 257 NLRB 442 (1981). While TRW was overruled in Our Way, Inc., 268 NLRB 394 (1983), after the judge's decision issued, we find the rule the Re- spondent promulgated, prohibiting solicitation and distribution during "working hours," is unlawful under the standard set forth in Our Way. In adopting the judge's conclusion that Supervi- sor Hodges' statement to employee Lopez that he had heard Lopez was passing out cards did not constitute unlawful 'surveillance or the impression of surveillance, we rely particularly on the fact that Hodges had received a report, that Lopez had been soliciting authorization cards during worktime and informed Lopez of this report when inquiring about the cards. We do not agree with the judge that Supervisor Price's 26 May 1982 inquiry to employee Tucker as to whether Tucker was involved with the Union "again" was a violation of Section 8(a)(1). We find that Price's comment was free of accompanying coercive statements and therefore did not violate 1 The judge found that Supervisor Roth's 1 June 1982 remarks to em- ployee Dey did not constitute coercive interrogation. Member Dennis finds it unnecessary to pass on this finding because a further finding of unlawful interrogation would be cumulative and would not affect the Order. Section 8(a)(1).2 Accordingly, we reverse the judge's finding. Rossmore House, 269 NLRB 1176 (1984); Sunnyvale Medical Clinic, 277 NLRB 1217 (1985). ORDER The National Labor Relations Board adopts the recommended Order of the administrative law judge and orders that the Respondent, Page Avjet, Incorporated, Orlando, Florida, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Order. 2 Under all the circumstances, Member Dennis would find that Super- visor Price's questioning of employee Tucker, who was not an open union adherent, was coercive and therefore violated Sec . 8(a)(1). See her dissenting opinion in Sunnyvale Medical Clinic, supra Priscilla Morgan Fenton, Esq., for the General Counsel. Richard N. Chapman, Esq. (Harris Bench, Wilcox, Rubin, Levey), of Rochester, New York, for the Respondent. H.C. Summers, of Atlanta, Georgia, for the Charging Party. DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE ROBERT A. GRrrrA, Administrative Law Judge. This case was tried before me on November 18 and 19, 1982, in Orlando, Florida, based on charges filed by Interna- tional Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO and James R. Chapman, an individual (the Union and the Charging Party, respectively) on July 20 and October 1, 1982, and a consolidated complaint issued by the -Regional Director for Region 12 of the National Labor Relations Board on November 5, 1982.1 The com- plaint alleges that the Page Avjet, Incorporated (Re- spondent) violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act by interference, threats, coercion, and issuance of a discrimi- natory warning and a discriminatory refusal of light work to an injured union proponent. Respondent's timely answer denies the commission of any unfair labor prac- tices notwithstanding Respondent's admission at trial to paragraph 11,A of the complaint and the attendant con- clusionary paragraphs of the complaint. All parties hereto were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, to intro- duce evidence, and to argue orally. Briefs were submit- ted by the General Counsel and Respondent. Both briefs were duly considered.2 On the entire record in this case and from my observa- tion of the witnesses and their demeanor on the witness stand, and on substantive, reliable evidence considered All dates herein are in 1982 unless otherwise specified The General Counsel's motion in brief to reoffer the affidavit of em- ployee Michael Belcher as substantive evidence to prove a complaint al- legation is denied for failure to meet the requirements of the Federal Rules of Evidence respecting hearsay and admissibility of evidence. 278 NLRB No. 63 PAGE AVJET, INC. along with the consistency and inherent probability of testimony, I make the following3 FINDINGS OF FACT 1. JURISDICTION AND STATUS OF LABOR ORGANIZATION-PRELIMINARY CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The complaint alleges, Respondent admits, and I find that Page Avjet, Incorporated is a New York corpora- tion engaged in the business of modifying and refurbish- ing aircraft passenger compartments in Orlando, Florida. Jurisdiction is not in issue. Page Avjet, Incorporated, in the past 12 months, in the course and conduct of its busi- ness operations purchased and received at its Orlando, Florida facility goods and materials valued in excess of $50,000 directly from points located outside the State of Florida. I conclude and fmd that Page Avjet, Incorporat- ed is an employer engaged in commerce and in oper- ations affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act. The complaint alleges, Respondent admits, and I con- clude and fmd that the Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. II. BACKGROUND Respondent's facility is housed in several hangars near the Orlando International Jetport. The work force num- bers approximately 275 employees among the woodshop, sheet metal fabrication shop, cabinet shop, and uphol- stery shop. Employees work three shifts to customize the aircraft interiors either to customer specifications or es- tablished designs. Approximately 30 leadmen work in the, various shops on all shifts to supplement the direction given by the shop and plant supervisors. Respondent's entrance classification is trainee and progression is toward craftsman status such as cabinetmaker, sheet metal mechanic, upholster, and installer. The Union began an onsite campaign in May signaled by a letter dated May 23 and received by Respondent May 25, naming six employee-in-plant committeemen: James Chapman, Scott Beaufait, David Dey, Samuel Previti, Michael Belcher, and Tim Duke. Employees en- gaged in union solicitation and distribution of union liter- ature on Respondent's premises. Several work rules were enforced during the campaign leading, at least partly, to the issues involved in this case. Several employee and su- pervisory witnesses testified during the proceeding and the pertinent portions of their testimony are summarized below. III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES Samuel J. Previti testified that he has been employed 1 year in the cabinet shop as a cabinetmaker. The shop su- pervisor was Herb Schumann, but on May 27 Jim Price, a The General Counsel and Respondent's counsel filed separate mo- tions to correct the transcript in several particulars. Although not entire- ly identical much of the substance is repeated between them. I grant both motions to correct the transcript and receive the General Counsel's motion and Respondent's motion into the record as G.C. Exh. 6 and R. Exh. 4, respectively. 445 production manager, announced to the shop employees on first and second shifts, in a meeting between shifts, that Louis Adams was the new shop supervisor. During the meeting Previti questioned, Price about several em- ployees' previous denials to accept distribution of union literature in the employee break area before shift starting time. Previti stated that there is no existing written policy on solicitation or distribution on company premises. However, Price at the meeting stated that employees were not supposed to hand out literature before or after work. Only during lunchtime, lunchbreak, or on break- times could employees distribute literature. Employees have during one Christmas season sold raffle tickets in the cabinet shop during working hours, but apparently it was not known to supervision at the time. Previti added that he saw union literature distributed by employees before shift on the company premises after the cabinet shop employees meeting of May 27. Previti himself dis- tributed union literature in the company parking lot before shift and after shift. Previti was never denied the distribution nor was he later disciplined for it. Kurt Niedrich testified that he has worked as a cabi- netmaker for 2 years. He presently works the third shift, 11:30 p.m. to 7:30 a.m. Several days after the union letter naming the in-plant organizing committee was received by Respondent, Schumann engaged Niedrich in conver- sation just before the shift ended. Schumann asked if anything unusual happened yesterday. Niedrich replied, "No," and Schumann referred to the letter. Niedrich could not recall if Schumann asked or not but he ex- plained to Schumann that people had been talking about the letter for a week and some employees had brought the letter to his bench during working time but Niedrich did not take the time to read it. Schumann asked, "who" but Niedrich simply grinned. Schumann returned the grin and stated, "Okay, by the way, they are throwing a party." Niedrich responded, "As far as I know, its not a union party just Jim Chapman's party." Schumann -said, "Thought I would ask." That ended the conversation. Niedrich attended the May 27 meeting of the wood- shop employees chaired by Jim Price. Niedrich recalled that it must have been an employee celebration or other- wise he would not have been there. When an airplane is finished the employees get off early to have a little party. Price announced the new supervisors and someone asked why everyone is scared to sign union cards. Price said, "I don't know nothing about who signs cards and who don't. I have been in unions off and on, but, what really is a union going to get you here?" Price told the employ- ees, "Go for it if you want to." In response to a question, Price told the employees that cards could be solicited during breaktime, during off time, and if the soliciting employee was off the clock he could not hold up some- one who was on working time. Th'e solicitation could be in the break area or outside the working area, Another employee asked if union literature could be placed on 'the bulletin board. Price said, "No" the board was company property but when an employee suggested putting union insignia; on the personal toolboxes Price said, "Yeah, you can put all you want on your own tool boxes." 446 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD James Arlan Tucker testified he has worked for Re- spondent in excess of 3 years as a sheet metal mechanic. He was leadman for the cockpit on the first shift under Supervisor Bill Sawyer. In late May Tucker attended a meeting of all leadmen and supervisors chaired by Art Greggo, the general manager. Several of the supervisors present were: Jim Price, Bill Sawyer, and Herb Schu- mann. Leadman Louis Adams was also present. Greggo informed the group of the union committee named in a letter and stated that he wanted the leadmen and supervi- sors to talk the Union down and ask the employees not to sign cards. Greggo explained to the assembly that the employees were treated good and did not need a union. The meeting lasted approximately one-half hour and ended at lunchtime. During lunch Jim Price came by Tucker's bench and asked if he was involved with the Union again. Tucker replied that he was not directly in- volved but he did sign a card. Price told 'Tucker tht he had belonged to unions in the past but they had never done any good for him. Tucker informed Price that' unions were a personal thing for the individual to decide and that Tucker was not going to talk'the Union down. That ended the conversation between Tucker and Price. Scott Beaufait testified that he worked for Respondent as a cabinetmaker on the second shift for approximately 1 year. He separated from employment sometime in the fall of 1982. During May he and Chapman distributed union literature in the break area during the break in the presence of the shift employees including Supervisor Jim Hodges. Some employees took the literature while others left it laying on the break tables. At the conclusion of the break Chapman and Beaufait left the area but shortly they returned to pick up the remaining literature. How- ever, after the break was over Hodges picked up the lit- erature left in the breakroom and discarded some and took some back to the production office. In the course of his work functions Beaufait must sand the cabinets and component parts such as doors. Small items he sands while sitting on a stool at his workbench. The larger items must stand free on the floor and he has to stand to sand them. Usually each day he seeks help or is sought after by other employees to help move large pieces of cabinetry to the workbenches from other loca- tions in the shop or from other departments in the facili- ty. Each employee must check out his power tools, such as a belt sander, router, or large orbital sander, from the supply room leaving his own chip in place of the tool. There are no "go-fers" employed to keep the employees supplied with tools, materials, or the product. In contrast to the sanding functions of the second shift, the first shift had employees who sanded full time and did so outside the woodshop in the open hangar area. Oftentimes a cabinetmaker would finish construction of a cabinet and immediately begin another leaving the finished cabinet to be sanded by someone else. Angel Lopez testified that he has worked for Re- spondent in the fabric shop for 14 months. He was as- signed to the third-shift under the supervision of Jim Hodges. On June 9 he had a conversation with Hodges in the front office just before lunch at 3:30 a.m. Hodges stated that he had heard Lopez was passing out union cards. Lopez replied that he was not passing out cards although he had been asked to do so. Lopez said he de- clined because he did not want to get involved. Hodges went on to say that the people next door were having worse times now than before when they were nonunion. Hodges said the Union might get them 50 cents an hour more but they could end up paying more for their present benefits. They could make $20 a week more but pay out $30 a week for the benefits. The entire conversa- tion lasted about 5 minutes. The employees' benefits con- sist of insurance, family insurance, uniforms, and a pen- sion plan. David Wayne Dey4 testified that he worked for Re- spondent 6 months before the union activity began. In May, Dey worked as a sheet metal installation mechanic on the second shift under Supervisor Robert Roth. On May 26, while working at his_ bench, Hodges approached him and stated, "What's this I hear about you getting in- volved with this union crap?" Dey did not respond. Hodges said the IAM was involved in San Antonio and look at what happened there. He stated that` there was a strike and "Page" closed the doors, later hiring back who they wanted to. Dey asked Hodges if he was sure it was the IAM. Hodges replied it was the IAM. Hodges stated that the Union would not do anything for the em- ployees-they would only be paying dues and if the Union came in, Page Avjet would just close the doors. Dey responded that Respondent has a considerable in- vestment in- the' facility and a lease with -the airport and asking, "You think they would really close the doors?" Hodges replied, "Well, maybe they wouldn't close the doors, but you know, I just can't understand why you're getting involved with the Union. We give you good ben- efits and pay. We give you a job and there are plenty of people out there who -want the job."' Dey, who was on medication to tranquilize a heart condition, on viewing his affidvit of June 15, added that Hodges said the Com- pany would just find another hangar when he made a reference to closing the doors. Also Hodges opined that Dey was a good mechanic and he hated to see him get involved in the Union. Dey testified that Hodges was ex- pressing basically just his opinions, and not opinions as a supervisor or in a supervisory capacity. On June 1 Dey had a second conversation with Super- visor Roth. Roth walked- up to Dey and asked, "How was it going with the Union?" Dey did not respond but Roth stated, "I don't understand why you're getting in- volved with the Union. We've given you a good job and good wages and so forth, and I really can't understand why you'd want to get involved." Dey responded, "Well, Bob, you know," but stopped because he did not really want to talk about it. - During the campaign Dey affixed union stickers to his personal toolbox.' Someone on several occasions scraped the stickers off his box and spray painted over others. He reported the incidents to his leadman, Crombie, and Su- pervisors Roth and Hodges. All three men expressed to Dey that because of his union sympathies he could expect such vandalism of his toolbox. Roth also stated 4 Dey kept notes of conversations with supervisors recording the sub- stance, location, and time lapse of each The notes were referred to when he gave his 'affidavit, then were destroyed PAGE AVJET, INC. 447 that the vandalism was a childish thing to do and offered to repaint Dey's toolbox, adding that if Respondent found out who was responsible he would be terminated. The Company could only do something if a person were caught in the act. Other employees displayed union stick- ers on there toolboxes and some of those boxes were de- faced also. On occasion Dey would be sent to the woodshop or out into the hangar to sand cabinets with a 4- by 4-inch wood block. Some weeks he could sand several days whereas in other weeks he would not sand at all. In most cases when he did sand he sat on a stool supplied to the woodshop employees. Dey distributed union literature to employees in the break area and parking lot. On a dozen occasions Dey left literature in the break area after dis- tributing to employees during break. James R. Chapman testified that he worked as a cabi- netmaker for Respondent during his employment from January 11 to September 9. While employed he worked on the second shift under the supervision of Schumann and Adams. Chapman's probationary period of employ- ment ended April 11 and he thereafter contacted the IAM to begin an organizing campaign. Chapman signed a card for the union organizer and received cards to so- licit other employees. He succeeded in getting 25 em- ployees to sign cards during lunchbreaks, during work- breaks, and before and after shift times. Some employees met Chapman at his residence and signed cards there. Chapman was 1 among 12 employees who were solicit- ing employee signatures. In addition to making solicita- tions, Chapman distributed union literature and spon- sored a union meeting at his residence. When he distrib- uted literature in the break area he would lay it out on the tables. On one occasion Hodges was present in the break area and when the employees left to resume work, including Chapman and Dey, Hodges picked up litera- ture which had blown on the floor and been left on the tables. Chapman and Dey watched Hodges pick up the literature but did not see what he did with it. During the campaign Chapman kept notes of events as they oc- curred, the notes were used as a foundation for his affi- davit given during the investigatory stage of this case. Chapman also taped literature to his personal toolbox almost daily and each day when he came in he found the material removed from his box. One incident occurred where someone had placed a legend, "Down with the IAM," on his toolbox. Chapman was not aware of any written or oral rules respecting distribution of literature or solicitation of employees. In addition to the union lit- erature and union solicitations the employees did have a super bowl football pool that was solicited during work- ing hours in the shop and the winners were posted on the bulletin board. Chapman was not aware of any super- visors who witnessed the football solicitations or saw the returns on the bulletin board. The bulletin board was also used for employees' sales notices of private proper- ty. Chapman attended the employee meeting held May 27 for the woodshop employees on the first and second shifts. During the meeting Mike Belcher asked Price to explain to the employees that union cards could be signed on breaks, lunchtime, and before and after work and that employees would not be fired for signing a card. Price, in response, told the assembled employees that they would not be fired for signing a union card and the cards could be signed on breaks, during lunch, and after work. Belcher asked, "Can we sign before work, before hours?" and Price said, "No." On July 25 Chapman was at home playing with a punching bag and broke his ankle. He went to the hospi- tal emergency room and was told a small bone was broken but it could not be set until the swelling subsided. An appointment was made to see a doctor the next day at 1 p.m. The following morning at 9 a.m. Chapman called Supervisor Adams and informed him of the broken ankle and his doctor's appointment that day. Adams told Chapman to come on in to work. Chapman testified that he stated, "So you have work for me?" Adams responded, "Yes, we have plenty of sanding. We can find work for you." Chapman saw the doctor who confirmed the broken bone and pulled ligaments. The bone was set and the leg was casted with orders for Chapman to stay off work for a week. Chapman felt he could work since he could walk on the leg with nominal pain. He was able to get from the doctor a release for 1 week's light duty. Chapman left the doctor's at 3:30 p.m., went home, and called in to his supervisor, Adams. Adams reconfirmed the availability of sanding for Chap- man and told him to report for work as scheduled on July 27. The next day Chapman took his doctor's release to his leadman, Lee Coleman, and went to his workbench on crutches and his ankle in a cast. Within several minutes Coleman met Chapman at his workbench and summoned him to the supervisor's office. Adams was in the office and engaged Chapman in a general conversation about the nature of his accident and the status of his ankle. Adams received a phone call. After the calf terminated he told Chapman that the caller was Greggo who said there was no work for Chapman. Adams said, "If you can't walk, you can't work. When you get the cast off, come on back in and go to work." Chapman return ed to the shop and prepared to go home after telling fellow employees he would see them in 4 to 6 weeks. (The doc- tor's prognosis for removal of the cast was 4 to 6 weeks.) As he left the premises he saw Supervisor Roth who in- quired of his ankle. Chapman asked Roth to call Chap- man if any sanding work became available because he would be able to come in and do it. Roth replied that he would call and Chapman left the plant. Chapman dis- carded the crutches the following day but did not inform the Company of the fact. By the weeks' end he had walked through the cast and 'had it replaced during the second week. By the end of the third week Chapman de- cided to cut the cast off himself so he could report to work. Chapman did return to work about the third week in August. Chapman testified that his primary training when hired was sanding. Every wood product that is worked on is sanded, when repaired, cleaned, or installed. When not sanding he is installing since he does not actually make the cabinets. The ratio of sanding to installation is vari- able. He may sand 1 day or 1 week then install cabinets 448 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD I day or spend 2 weeks installing. When sanding, Chap- man sat on a stool as much as possible with the size and shape of the particular piece needing work being the de- ciding factor. ,There was not a stool for every employee in the shop so there were times when a stool was not available. In most cases the tools and the materials for the shop employees were hand-carried into the shop by the shop employees. Daily, employees were needed to bring in large pieces to be worked on. Included in Chap- man's work duties were reworking doors, panels, hard- ware (such as hinges and pulls), adjusting fits, or repair- ing pieces. Everything but actually building the piece is within Chapman's job function. Much of the repair, rework, and , adjusting is done inside the aircraft which requires negotiating a ladder to get into the interior. Other tasks are performed at the individual work- benches. With regard to his light duty status, Chapman testified, "The doctor left this up to me what I felt was light duty. And I felt that I couldn't go up and down the aircraft because of bumping into the furniture, scratching it. It was awkward going up and down the stairs and doing the repairs that I did. You would have to go up, take parts, fit them, go back down to the woodshop, up and down, up and down and I felt that I couldn't go up the stairs and go into the plane at that time with the cast." Jim Price, nee Reese, testified that he has been produc- tion manager for all shifts at Respondent's facility for 4 years. During his tenure there has not been any written policy on distribution of materials to employees or solici- tations of employees. An oral rule has always been in effect, to wit; "During normal working hours there will be no soliciting or passing of materials." Price explained working hours to be those hours employees are on the clock and working. Price told second- and first-shift woodshop employees at the end of May in an assembly that, during normal working hours, there will be no so- liciting or passing of literature. He denied telling employ- ees they could not solicit or pass out literature before or after shift times. Price was not aware of any enforcement of the oral rule either for distributions or solicitations. He assumed some oral warnings had been given by de- partment supervisors but did not know of any specific in- stances of employees being disciplined for violation- of the distribution or solicitation rule. Price did not recall any meeting Greggo had with su- pervisors and leadmen nor did he recall any conversation with Tucker about the Union. In the past, employees have been given "light duty" if they are capable of performing their duties. There is, however, no quantitative amount of their overall duties they must be able to perform to qualify for light duty. The determining factors are what are their duties as an employee and what are they capable of doing with the handicap. A sheet metal installer who normally works in the aircraft broke his leg and was in a walking cast from his knee to his foot. He was assigned to sheet metal fabri- cation on a bench because he had those skills and capa- bilities. One sheet metal leadman broke an arm and he continued to function as leadman but without working with tools. Price also recalled an avionics mechanic, who normally strung wires throughout the aircraft, had broken an arm, but his hand was free of the cast so he was still able to function and string wires. When Chapman returned to work with the doctor's re- lease for light duty Louis Adams called Price. He told Price that Chapman was on crutches and was incapable of performing his duties. Price told Adams that he would get back to him after conferring with Greggo. Price told Greggo what Adams said about Chapman and Greggo said he would take care of it. Greggo then called Adams but Price was not present for the conversation. He later heard that Chapman was sent home. Price admitted that at times other classifications are utilized for sanding when the time for which certain work is scheduled is in jeopardy. The first shift had two full-time sanders (hired as trainees) whereas the other shifts used all employees for sanding. In July, several days before Chapman broke his ankle, the two first-shift sanders quit. Several days after Chapman broke his ankle, replacements for the sanders were hired. Price did not consider that Chapman could assume the duties of one of the full-time sanders rather than hiring a new em- ployee because he knew that Chapman was incapable of performing sanding duties without both hands and both feet free. Arthur Greggo, director of production of 3-1/2 years, testified that Respondent's solicitation and distribution policy, as applied to employees, allowed employee solici- tation and distribution on breaks, lunch, and other than duty hours. Such policy has existed as long as he has been employed. Employees, although not specifically in- formed of the policy, would learn its provisions on com- mitting some infraction. Greggo was not aware of any employee solicitations in violation of the rule as stated, including any employee raffles or football pools. Greggo stated that Respondent's policy on "light duty" for employees depended on the affliction and the normal duties of the employees. In Chapman' s case light duty was denied by Greggo after conversing with Super- visor Adams and observing Chapman's condition. Greggo asked Adams what Chapman's physical condi- tion was and Adams said he was on crutches and had a foot in a cast. Greggo asked, "Do we have any work for him to do that he could perform?" Adams responded, "No, it doesn't look like it because he has to use the crutches even to stand." Greggo,then said, "Well, if it's that bad, I wouldn't have any idea what you would be able to have him do either, but reserve judgment until I come back." Greggo then went to the shop area to view Chapman's physical condition for himself. He did see that Chapman was balancing himself on crutches to stand. Greggo told Adams, "It doesn't look like he would be able to do much for himself or for us." Adams returned to Chapman presumably to tell him there was no work for him. Greggo was not aware that Chapman's light duty slip covered only 1 week. Greggo recalled he did hold a meeting of 25 to 30 leadmen, not supervisors (with the exception of Jim Price who may have attended), in late May which was prompted by questions from leadmen concerning how they could respond to inquiries for their opinions on unions. Greggo told the group they should voice their PAGE AVJET, INC. 449 opinions and not to hold back . If they felt for the Union they should speak up. If they were against it they should speak up. Greggo denied telling the group to discourage employees from engaging in union activities or discour- aging employees from signing union cards. Louis Adams testified that he has been employed by Respondent 2-1/2 years and for the last 5 months has su- pervised the cabinet shop. The cabinet shop only oper- ates on two shifts with 16 employees on the day shift and 6 employees on the second shift . Each employee is as- signed a bench but some may share a bench when the second shift overlaps. There are six stools in the shop to be used at the benches. The supply room is on the oppo- site side of the hangar approximately one-sixteenth of a mile distant. All tools must be returned each shift to the supply room. Materials are housed in the basement with access via stairs. The woodshop had four classifications: trainee and cabinetmaker A, B, and C. Chapman was a trainee. Trainees do everything but make the cabinets, but on occasion may be assigned to help a cabinetmaker construct the cabinet. Generally trainees install the doors and hardware on finished cabinets and sand the entire piece. Adams stated that Chapman called on Monday in late July to inform him that he had injured his foot and was going to the doctor. Chapman said he would be in the next day. Adams told Chapman to come in the next day. Adams could not recall any discussion of availability of work for Chapman in some injured condition . The fol- lowing day Chapman did come in on crutches and his foot in a cast. Adams saw his doctor's release for light duty, but did not think Chapman was stable enough to work. He informed Price of Chapman's condition and Price in turn contacted Greggo. Greggo consulted with Adams who explained that in Champan's condition he could not handle any of the work . It was decided that there was no work for Chapman in his condition and Adams informed Chapman of that fact. Chapman said, "Fine," and left the facility. Adams did not receive any interim reports from Chapman on his physical condition. About 3 weeks later Chapman did report back to work and resumed' his duties in the woodshop. With regard to the full-time sanders, Adams testified that Robert Hevia was the only one in July. He was on the first shift. There were no full-time sanders on the other shifts. In late July, before Chapman broke his ankle, Hevia walked off the job, not to return. (Respond- ent's counsel supplied 7-29-82 as the date Hevia walked off the job and quit.) James Hodges, third-shift installation supervisor, testi- fied that in May after a break in the employees' break- room he picked up some union literature left on the tables and floor. He laid the union literature on a table adjacent to the welding shop, Hodges denied ever having a conversation with David Dey about union ac- tivities. Hodges did converse with another employee, Jim Wickum, in late May while informing the employee of his progression from probationary to regular employee and the amount of his pay raise . The conversation took place in the production office. Wickum asked if signing a card was the same as voting for the Union and wanted to know if he could get his card returned. Hodges pro- fessed ignorance of the facts and stated that he could not answer him. Wickum stated, "Well, I understand that if we go union they are going to close this plant down like they did in San Antonio." Hodges replied that a multi- million dollar corporation is not going to close down for a union. Wickum asked about losing his benefits . Hodges stated that he foresaw no loss of benefits for employees and then suggested that he talk to the employees next door who were represented by a union. Hodges opined that the employees next door could tell someone more about a union than he could . In Hodges' memory the San Antonio plant had never closed down for any reason. Hodges did not discuss loss of benefits if the Union came in with Angel Lopez. He did discuss the solicita- tion rule with Lopez. An employee reported to Hodges that Lopez was soliciting card signatures during work- time. Hodges informed Lopez of the report and admon- ished Lopez about solicitations during work . He told Lopez that signatures were only to be solicited during break and lunch hour, unless it is done somewhere else, not during work hours . Lopez repeated to Hodges the rumor that the plant would close if the Union came in. Hodges stated that such a rumor was unfounded and suggested that ,Lopez talk to the employees next door to learn about the union situation. There was an incident of someone defacing David Dey's toolbox apparently on the third shift. Dey report- ed the incident to Hodges, who asked Dey if he expect- ed Hodges to investigate the incident . Dey responded, "No, I just want to make it official that I am notifying you.,, Herbert Schumann, supervisor of the upholstery shop, testified that he never questioned an employee about the union letter naming the plant employees as a union com- mittee. In fact he had not seen the letter until preparing to testify in the trial of this case albeit he had heard of its existence. Robert Roth, second-shift supervisor, testified that he did not question employee Dey about his union involve- ment at any time. He did receive a complaint from Dey about someone defacing his toolbox by scraping stickers off the box. Dey asked Roth what he was going to do about it. Roth asked if Dey knew who did it. Dey did not. Roth said if the Company found someone doing such it would discipline them. On a second occasion Dey reported that someone had spray painted over the union stickers on his toolbox . Dey' did not know who had spray painted his box. Roth offered to repair Dey's tool- box but Dey declined the offer preferring to do it him- self. In an unrelated incident in June someone put glue in the toolbox locks of some 'six to eight employees. The Company did not know who had done this , but the Company gave the people new locks to replace those damaged. Roth denied that he told Dey that what he was doing was screwing up other peoples' jobs by mess- ing with the Union. Roth did recall, however, that lead- man Crombie, at the time Dey was reporting the vandal- ism to Roth, did make ' such a statement to Dey. 450 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Analysis and Conclusions The General Counsel had offered evidence to prove complaint allegations of interference, interrogation, threats, impression of surveillance, promulgation of an invalid no-solicitation/no-distribution rule, and a dis- criminatory discipline followed by a discriminatory re- fusal of light duty work. The burden of proof rests on the General Counsel to establish the allegations of her complaint by a preponder- ance of the evidence. This burden never shifts to the Re- spondent and no onus is imposed on the Respondent to disprove any of the allegations pleaded in the complaint. The General Counsel must sustain her burden of proof with affirmative evidence and the discrediting of any of Respondents' evidence does not, without more, consti- tute affirmative evidence to support the General Coun- sel's obligation to prove her case. With regard to the alleged 8(a)(1) violations, the test is whether Respondent engaged in conduct which, it may reasonably be said, tends to interfere with the free exer- cise of employee rights under the Act. Therefore not all interrogations or interference are violative. They must be coercive of the employees or uttered under circum- stances that would induce fear of reprisal among employ- ees. The alleged 8(a)(1) activity herein occurred within a 2- week period and was not extensive since only a half dozen employees were affected out of a total work force of 275. Although not contolling the ratio of employees is a factor to consider when inferring animus on the part of Respondent. An early incident in the campaign was the meeting of leadmen called by General Manager Greggo as a result of questions put to him from several leadmen. Some leadmen were seeking guidance in what they could or could not do. As Tucker recalled, Greggo explained to the group why he thought the employees did not need a union, based in part on the good working conditions al- ready in place. Also Greggo told the group to talk the Union down and ask employees to sign union cards. Greggo recalled telling the leadmen to express their opinions one way or the other and not to hold back. Nei- ther witness could recall exactly what was said nor was their recall of the one-half hour meeting substantial. The substance of the remarks lies somewhere between the recall of the two witnesses. Tucker's testimony, standing alone, does not unequivocally show a violation on the part of Greggo. The General Counsel has alleged "in- structions to employees and supervisors" but the evi- dence shows that only leadmen were in attendance with Production Manager Price. Respondent has the right to campaign among employees (leadmen) just as the union sympathizers do and make known its position of opposi- tion to the union organizing. This would include its posi- tion of "talking the Union down" and "asking employees not to sign union cards" particularly if neither were initi- ated in a coercive manner. There is no evidence to sug- gest coercion nor is the evidence substantial enough to sustain the allegation as framed. In my view, Greggo's remarks to the leadmen in Price's presence were nothing more than Respondent letting employees know it was not in favor of union organizing and was hopeful of some support among employees. I conclude that Re- spondent did not instruct its supervisors and leadmen to tell other employees not to sign union cards in a manner that would be violative of the Act. In another early incident, the General Counsel's wit- nesses testified, without contradiction, that Supervisor Hodges on one occasion, after an employee break ended in the breakroom, picked up the union literature which was scattered on the floor and left on the tables. The witnesses agreed that the distribution procedure was to place the literature on tables for the employees to take and read if they so desired. The witnesses further agreed that during breaks they freely distributed literature with- out incident. Hodges admitted that on the one occasion he did pick up the union literature and place it on a table outside the break area. The General Counsel alleges the single incident to be interference with employees' rights, but employees only have the right to engage in activities in support of their individual union preferences. Employ- ees do not have the right to clutter break areas with union literature. It cannot be gainsaid that the employees engaged in the distribution, on reflection, decided to return and collect the abandoned literature themselves but Hodges simply beat them to it. The only differences in the two attempts was the final depository of the litera- ture. I fail to see any Section 7 rights attached to the abandoned literature or any interference with employees' rights guaranteed by Section 7. I therefore conclude and find that Respondent had not violated the Act by Super- visor Hodges' cleaning up the break area at the conclu- sion of an employee break. In my view, the union litera- ture in the break area assumes the same character as any other material once the break has ended and employees have returned to work. The General Counsel had alleged five counts of coer- cive interrogation by admitted supervisors-one each by Price, Roth, and Schumann and two for Hodges. Each supervisor denied asking any employees about their union activities of the union activities of other employ- ees. Hodges also is alleged to have made two threats to employees and to have given one employee the impres- sion that he was under surveillance. Dey, who kept notes during the campaign, appeared forthright in his testimony appearing only to recall the events as they happened. Dey's characterizations of the conversations as opinions of fellow employees rather than statements of supervisors is somewhat instructive of his purpose for testifying. His testimony is credible and shows, indeed, that the Union was a topic of discussion among supervisors and employees particularly if the em- ployee was willing to engage in the discussion as was Dey, His testimony also suggests that employees were not obliged to discuss the Union if they chose not to. Dey was a known union adherent, as one of six in-plant committeemen, so he was a natural target for discussion. Although the free atmosphere of discussion usually sug- gest the lack of coercion and, therefore, inclusive inter- rogation may not be violative, the current status of Board law (by which I am bound) dictates a finding of a violation. In addition the portions of the conversation dealing with "closing the doors" or "just finding another PAGE AVJET, INC. 451 hangar" constitute threats to employees in reprisal for sympathizing with the Union, Accordingly, I conclude and find that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act through its Supervisor Jim Hodges. Dey's conversation with Roth on June 1 is indicative of the nature of the union discussions which took place between supervisors and certain employees. Dey was an admitted union supporter and obviously friendly with his supervisors. Roth's single question, "How's it going with the Union?" hardly attains the level of interrogation re- quired to pass the 8(a)(1) test. Moreover, Dey was fully prepared to discuss the matter with Roth but for some reason stopped short in his response. Roth, sensing Dey's lack of enthusiasm at the time, said no more. I cannot conclude or find, on this record, that Roth interrogated Dey in violation of the Act. The General Counsel's evidence of the June 9 conver- sation between Lopez and Hodges is something less than substantial. Also, Hodges credibly testified that his query of Lopez was prompted by a report from an employee of Lopez' solicitations, during worktime. In spite of Lopez' denial of any solicitations, the circumstance is not one of surveillance or the impression thereof. Worktime is for work and supervisors can require employees to follow the work rules and can discipline employees for infrac- tions. Here there was nothing more than an oral warning which apparently was sufficient. With regard to the al- leged threat of loss of benefits, if the conversation oc- curred exactly as Lopez testified, I would not find the substance coercive. Lopez freely engaged in the conver- sation and obviously prompted the remarks made by Hodges. However, Lopez' reporting of the conversation is conveniently one sided, either through lack of recall or by design. In any event, the conversation is too incom- plete to conclude or find that Hodges made a threat of loss of benefits to Lopez. Therefore I conclude and find that Respondent did not overstep the bounds of conver- sation through Supervisor Hodges on June 9. Niedrich's recall of his conversation with Schumann specifically negates any interrogation of Niedrich about the union letter of May 23. Niedrich's testimony does show that following an unsolicited explanation of the let- ter's circulation in the plant, which included the state- ment that some employees had brought the letter to Nei- drich's workbench during worktime, Schumann did in- quire "who." Niedrich's admission to Schumann that em- ployees had engaged in union business with Niedrich during worktime was sufficient to allow Schumann to make the inquiry with impunity. The fact that, Niedrich did not respond and Schumann did not press the issue evinces Schumann's lack of illegal concern for the cir- cumstances. If he was intent on coercion of Niedrich, he would' have continued the conversation about the letter and its circulation. Schumann's later reference to a party and Niedrich's response that it is not a union party places the injection of "union characterization" on Niedrich's shoulders. Schumann cannot be held accountable for Niedrich's language, notwithstanding, the two may be referencing the same party. I conclude and find, based on the, above, that Respondent did not unlawfully inter- rogate employee Niedrich, Tucker's recall of the Greggo meeting with leadmen included an almost immediate question from Price at lunchtime. Price asked if Tucker was involved with the Union again. Tucker told Price that he was not directly involved but he did sign a union card. Tucker ended the conversation by telling Price that Tucker was not going to talk the Union down as suggested by Greggo. Price had no recall of any such conversation with Tucker. In my view, Price's reference to Tucker's union involve- ment "again" negates any fear of reprisal in Tucker making the question something other than coercive, par- ticularly, where there is a lack of any evidence to show an attempt ' at coercion during Tucker's first union in- volvement. The implication thus is that employees are free to engage in union activity and on more than one occasion. I am, however, bound by the Board law which views Price's remarks as violative. I am therefore con- strained to, and do, conclude and find that Respondent, through Supervisor Price, violated the Act, as alleged. The General Counsel alleged two counts of interfer- ence, one each by Hodges and Roth, involving the van- dalism of Dey's toolbox and buttressed by Respondent's stated position on the incidents, to wit, an employee can expect such vandalism did occur to Dey's and other em- ployee's toolboxes. There is no evidence, however, to identify the perpetrator or to suggest that he was acting in behalf of Respondent, i.e., there is no evidence of agency of the perpetrator or of the principal of Respond- ent. The General Counsel's argumentative reference to the remarks attributed to Hodges and Roth are explained by the record as a whole. Roth credibly testified that leadman Crombie did make such a' disparaging remark to Dey in Roth's presence and possibly in Hodge's pres- ence. Dey ' admitted that Hodges offered to investigate the incident if Dey could supply any facts to begin. Dey could not. I place no emphasis on the failure of either su- pervisor to affirmatively denounce the remark. Neither do I find that silence on the part of the supervisors is tantamount to ratification of the remark to the point that Respondent is liable for' such remark. All witnesses agreed that both Hodges and Roth were sympathetic to the victims of the vandalism offering to redress the wrong by refurbishing, the toolboxes. As Roth stated to Dey, "It was a childish'thing to do." Respondent did all it could do in the circumstance since no employee could be identified as the culprit and ultimately disciplined for their conduct. I therefore conclude and find that the General Counsel has failed to sustain her burden of proof on complaint paragraphs 6,(g) and 8(b). All witnesses agree ; that Respondent did not have a written no-distribution%o: ssolicitation rule, did have an oral rule which employees may or may not have been aware of, and, had not issued any formal discipline for any infractions of the' oral rule. Both before and after promulgation of the oral rule by Price, employees freely solicited and distributed, on company premises before and after shift, during lunchtime, and while on workbreaks in the plant. In response to questions from employess in an assembly, Price explained the Respondent's no- distribution/no-solicitation rule. Witness Price stated the rule thusly, "During normal working hours there will be 452 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD no soliciting or passing of materials ." He explained (for the record) working hours to be those hours employees are on the clock and working. Price, when recalling the existence of the rule, stated that normal working hours to him did not include break and lunch periods. Albeit no employee was disciplined for soliciting before or after work and an explanation of normal working hours was given to the employees assembled from the woodshop, not all employees were made aware of the explanation. Price said the rule had been in existence for his 4 years of employment, apparently without any prior explana- tion, and Greggo stated that employees would become aware of the rule when they violated it. In neither case is the Board's law on no-solicitation/no-distribution rules satisfied.5 An ambiguity exists in Respondent's stated rule which technically is a violation in spite -of the lack of any formal enforcement. As Price indicated there may have been oral warnings given to employees that he is not aware of. Accordingly, I conclude and find that Re- spondent promulgated an overly broad no-solicitation rule at a time when employees were engaged in exercis- ing their Section 7 rights and in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. Respondent, at trial and on the record, admitted the allegations of paragraph 11(a) and the concluding para- graphs following which is an admission to an unfair labor practice. Accordingly, I conclude and find that Re- spondent, by issuing a written warning to James R. Chapman on May 26, has violated the Act and I shall order a remedy. The General Counsel alleges and contends that James Chapman was discriminatorily refused light duty work after an injury unrelated to work. Admittedly, Respond- ent refused him the light duty work but argues that its motivation was lawful. The record evidence established that Respondent does not allow employees with injuries to work on "light duty" within their classification and proven abilities. It was uncontroverted that several em- ployees, one with a broken leg in a cast and the other with an arm in a cast, were given work to do while in- jured. The employee with the broken leg could not per- form as a sheet metal installer but was given sheet metal fabrication work which was within his skills and physical capabilities. The employee with the broken arm was able to perform his normal functions of wiring because his hand was outside the cast. Only in Chapman's case was the nature of the injury and treatment detailed in the record. Chapman had a broken bone in his ankle which required a cast. The doctor wanted Chapman to stay off work at least 1 week but Chapman persuaded the doctor to agree to "light duty" work with no specifics. Chapman explained the light duty as whatever he felt he was capable of doing, i.e., the doctor left the type of light duty up to Chapman. Such an arrangement with the doctor would be fine if Chapman in turn could assign himself to work functions but that he does not do. Throughout his testimony Chap- man down played the injury to his ankle ("I water skied, walked through the cast in a week, threw away the crutches, and chiseled the cast off myself") and claimed 5 TRW, Inc., 257 NLRB 442 (1981) he could have performed sanding functions. In fact Chapman stated that sanding would have been the only work he could have done because his other functions re- quired him to go up and down stairs and carry pieces of furniture. Notwithstanding Chapman's current appraisals of his injury and his ability to do at least part of his usual job functions, he reported for work on crutches and with his ankle in a cast . He was told by supervision that he did not appear to be in a stable enough condition to per- form any work in the woodshop . Chapman did not con- test the determination but rather left the premises telling coworkers he would see them in 3 to 6 weeks. In my view, Chapman's appearance at the plant in his condition was nothing more than a token appearance. I find Chap- man's failure to notify Respondent of any change in his physical condition, particularly the loss of the crutches, instructive of his true desires and abilities. The General Counsel argues vehemently that Re- spondent had sanding work to be done in the woodshop which may require extra help from other departments. The evidence, however, does not establish Respondent's need for extra help on sanding despite the incomplete testimony of one full -time sander walking off the job around the time Chapman reported for light duty work. Moreover the evidence does not establish, other than Chapman's self-serving statements long after the injury healed, that Chapman could indeed perform even the sanding functions. The record description of a cabinet- maker trainee's functions from supervisors and Chapman himself do not tend to sustain the General Counsel's con- tention that Chapman was ready, willing, and able to work in the woodshop. Just as Respondent throught, the doctor originally did not think Chapman should return to work immediately. When Chapman did report back for work, without cast or crutches, about 3-weeks later, he was in fact put back to work. The General Counsel's arguments that Hodges, when injured, was allowed to work without being told , "if you cannot walk, you cannot work," and that a wireman was allowed to work with his arm in a cast and he had addi- tional skills within his usual job functions that could be utilized. The wireman's cast was such that his hand was not immobilized; therefore, he could perform his usual functions with both hands. Even in the face of admitted animus, the General Counsel's case of discrimination must be supported by an alleged discriminatee maintaining his prior work status. When, as here, an , alleged discriminatee, through his own conduct, had placed himself outside his usual work status the conduct of the employer is less of a moving factor. That is to say, before the General Counsel can claim a discriminatory motive in refusing light duty work, the in- ability of the discriminatee to work must be Respond- ent's own doing. If the discriminatee has by his own con- duct caused his inability to perform, then Respondent cannot be held accountable . If the evidence showed' that employees in the same condition as Chapman in the past were found other work which they could do with their injury then Respondent would have the liability for Chapman. Here, however, the record evidence shows clearly that any "light duty" for injured employees must PAGE AVJET, INC. 453 be performed within their usual work functions. I con- clude and fmd that Respondent has not violated the Act by refusing "light duty" work to James R. Chapman. To hold otherwise would, contrary to the statute, place the alleged discriminatee in a better position than he held prior to Respondent's suspected conduct. The General Counsel's allegation of paragraph 9 of the complaint found no support among the admitted evi- dence in the record and will therefore be dismissed. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. By maintaining a no-solicitation/no-distribution rule which prohibits employees from engaging in oral solici- tations and distributions on company property during working hours, Respondent has interfered with, coerced, and restrained its employees in the exercise of their Sec- tion 7 rights in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. 2. Respondent has, through Supervisors Jim Price and James Hodges, interrogated its employees in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. 3. Respondent has, through Supervisor James Hodges, threatened employees with closure of the plant if the Union were successful in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. 4. Respondent has discriminated against James R. Chapman in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act by issuing a written warning to him on May 26. REMEDY Having found that the Respondent has engaged in cer- tain unfair labor practices, I fmd it necessary to order the Respondent to cease and desist therefrom and to take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the poli- cies of the Act. On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on the entire record, I issue the following recommend- ed6 ORDER The Respondent, Page Avjet, Incorporated, Orlando, Florida, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall 1. Cease and desist from (a) Maintaining, giving effect to, or enforcing its oral no-solicitation/no-distribution rule as promulgated herein which forbids employees from engaging in union solicita- tions and distributions on company property during working hours. (b) Interrogating its employees about their union sym- pathies or those of other employees. (c) Threatening employees with plant closure in the event the Union is successful in representing its employ- ees. (d) Issuing disciplinary warnings to its employees as a reprisal for their engaging in activities on behalf of the Union. 8 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 Board and all objections to them shall be deemed waived for all pur- poses. (e) In any like or related manner interfering with, re- straining, or coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act. (a) Rescind the no-solicitation/no-distribution rule now existing to the extent that such rule prohibits union solic- itation and distributions by employees on company prop- erty during working hours. (b) Remove from its files any reference to the written warning issued to James R. Chapman on May 26 and notify him that this has been done. (c) Preserve and, on request, make available to the Board or its agents for examination and copying, all pay- roll records, social security payment records, timecards, personnel records and reports, and all other records nec- essary to analyze the amount of backpay due under the terms of this Order. (d) Post at its facility in Orlando, Florida, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix."T Copies of the notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 12, after being signed by the Respondent's au- thorized representative, shall be posted by the Respond- ent immediately upon receipt and maintained for 60 con- secutive days in conspicuous places including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Rea- sonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to ensure that the notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (e) Notify the Regional Director in writing within 20 days from the date of this Order what steps the Re- spondent has taken to comply. IT IS ALSO ORDERED that the complaint be dismissed insofar as it alleges violations of the Act not specifically found. 7 If this Order is enforced by a judgment of a United States court of appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order of the Nation- al 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 National Labor Relations Board has found that we violated the National Labor Relations Act and has or- dered us to post and abide by this notice. WE WILL NOT prohibit union solicitations and union distributions among our employees on company property during working hours. WE WILL NOT interrogate our employees about their union sympathies or desires. WE WILL NOT threaten our employees with closure of the plant if the Union is successful. WE WILL NOT issue written warnings to our employ- ees because they have a desire to support the Union. 454 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere WE WILL remove from the company files any refer- with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of ence to the written warning issued to James R. Chapman their rights guaranteed under Section 7 of the Act. on May 26, 1982. PAGE AVJET, INCORPORATED