Clinton Corn Processing Co.

DECISIONS OF NAI()NAL LABOR RELATI()NS BO()ARD Clinton Corn Processing Company, a Division of Standard Brands Incorporated and American Federation of Grain Millers, AFL-CIO I)aniel Construction Company, a Division of Daniel International Corporation and American Feder- ation of (;rain Millers, AFL-CIO. Cases 3- CA-9115 1, 3-CA-9361, and 3-CA-9115-2 December 8, 1980 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN FANNING AND MFNMBtIRS JlNKINS ANI) P NII ItO On July 31, 198X(), Administrative Law Judge George Norman issued the attached Decision in this proceeding. Thereafter, the General Counsel and Clinton Corn Processing Company, herein Re- spondent Clinton, filed exceptions and supporting briefs. Subsequently, Respondent Daniel Construc- tion Company, a Division of Daniel International Corporation filed cross-exceptions and a brief in support thereof and in answer to the General Counsel's exceptions and a motion to strike certain portions of the General Counsel's brief. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na- tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au- thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. The Board has considered the record and the at- tached Decision in light of the exceptions and briefs and has decided to affirm the rulings,' find- ings, 2 and conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge and to adopt his recommended Order. ORDER Pursuant to Section 10()(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Re- lations Board adopts as its Order the recommended Order of the Administrative Law Judge and hereby orders that Respondent Clinton Corn Proc- i Respondent Clnton's motion to strike certai portions of the (eneral Counsel's brief Io the Admilli straltit LaW. Judge is hereby d'iied be- u;use he Admnlistrative l.iu Judlge e ffecivel disposed if Iht malter See fn 2 of his I)ecision. (Clilrary to the coltelltiolrlS of Rcrspondent (Iiton, the Admrnnlsratise L.aw Judge did not err by perrilillng Ihe comprlplainl to be amenilded ut the hearing to allege that aid Resplinll tirlton lrairt;ailel iri Ililtlwful nio dltrlbultOll rule Mreover, the rigilial comriplaint contained all lle- gatrlon that Respolndent maintarined all Irunlawful Tio-slohiciation rule W'e agree with the Admiinlratise I a Judge that the amelldnlleit is closely related to the rio-soliilation rule andrl thlt the iue s as fully litigated Accordingly . we find Responldenlt (lirlltl as not denied duc prosess ir preudiced by the amendment TIlhi General C(olunsel and Respondenl ( linlonl hase excepted to lcr- ltir credihility fitdings made hb the Adilistlrative l.al Judge It is the Bllard's established polic nol to ovecrrule ail a.Idmiiiitrative law Iljudges resolullonis vllh respect to credibility unless the lear preponlderance iof all Of the rle illlt vrdelce cosll rces us that the resolutiori are incor- rectl Standurd i)rv Wall Pndu(tr. I, )I NIR 544 (lqSl)), cn(dl 188 I 2d 362 (d CIr 1951) We hta.lc careful examired the recorl illrd tfind no basis for rversling his findings 253 NLRB No. 84 essing Company, a Division of Standard Brands, Incorporated, Syracuse, New York, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the said recommended Order, except that the attached notice is substituted for that of the Administrative Law Judge. IT IS I:UR'HER ORI)t-RII) that the complaint in Case 3-CA-9115-2 be, and it hereby is, dismissed. APPENDIX NorliF To EMPI.OIio'iS tOosI 1I1) BY ()ORI)R OF I fIF NATIO()NA LABOR RI.AI IONS OARD An Agency of the United States Government After a hearing at which all sides had an opportu- nity to present evidence and state their positions, the National Labor Relations Board found that we have violated the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, and has rdered us to post this notice. The Act gives employees the following rights: To engage in self-organization To form, join, or assist any union To bargain collectively through repre- sentatives of their own choice To engage in activities together for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection To refrain from the exercise of any or all such activities. WI: Will I NOT give effect to rules contained in the employee handbook and the addendum which prohibit the employees from engaging in the following: Bring on to company property or use news- papers, magazines, pictures, pamphlets, books, drawings or other material not spe- cifically authorized. Solicitation or any other form of disturbing, or intimidating, employees during working hours on company property. WI; Wii. NOT punish our employees by is- suing written warnings in an attempt to en- force the above rules. WI. Wll I NOT ill any like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employ- ees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them under Section 7 of the Act. Wli wit.l expunge from our records the written warning contained in Theodore R. Ki- jowski's evaluation of September 28, 1979. WtI will rescind the above rules from the employee handbook and addendum and advise, 622 CILINt()N C()RN PR()CISSING( C()MPANY in writing, each employ to whom we have given such handbook that said rules have been rescinded. ClINTON CORN PRO('CLSSIN(; COMPA- NY, A DIVISION OF: STANI)ARI) BRANI)S, INCORPORATIEI) DECISION STA'I MN I )OF IT I CASF GtOR(,I. NORMAN, Administrative Law Judge: This case was heard before me on December 18 and 19. 1979, in Syracuse, New York. It is based on unfair labor prac- tice charges filed by the American Federation of Grain Millers, AFL-CIO, herein called the Union, against Clin- ton Corn Processing Company, a Division of Standard Brands, Incorporated, herein called Respondent Clinton, and Daniel Construction Company, a Division of Daniel International Corporation, herein called Respondent Daniel, alleging violations of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the National Labor Relations Act, herein called the Act. A consolidated complaint issued on June 26, 1979., al- leging that Respondent Daniel violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act by terminating Jeanne Good (Case 3- CA-9115-2). Respondent Clinton was also charged with violating Section 8(a)( ) and (3) because it allegedly "caused" that termination (Case 3-CA-9115-1). There were also allegations of independent 8(a)( ) violations against Respondent Daniel and Respondent Clinton, through interrogation and creating the impression of sur- veillance. On November 20, 1979, Case 3-CA-9361 was consoli- dated with the above cases. The latter case alleged that Respondent Clinton issued a written warning to one of its employees, Theodore Kijowski, in violation of Sec- tion 8(a)(1) and (3), and further that Respondent Clin- ton's solicitation-distribution rule violated Section 8(a)(l) of the Act. Respondents' answers denied the commission of any unfair labor practices as alleged in the consolidated com- plaint issued by the Regional Director for Region 3 on November 20, 1979. All parties were given full opportunity to participate, to introduce relevant evidence, to examine and cross-ex- amine witnesses, and to argue orally. The General Coun- sel and Respondents filed briefs which have been careful- ly considered. 2 Upon the entire record, including my consideration of the briefs and my careful observation of the witnesses and their demeanor, I make the following: I Daniel filed a motion to sever prior to the hearing hut the monion had not been ruled on. At the hearing the motion was granted and Cast 3-CA-9361 as severed from Cases 3-CA-9115-I and 9115-2 How'eser. confusion arose over the scope of this severance when counsel for the General Counsel rested her case against Respondent Daniel, hut refused to rest as to Case 3-CA-9115-1 against Respondent Clinton. Whereupon. Respondent Daniel requested permission to withdraw the motion to sever. Permission was granted 2 By motion dated Fehruary 3, 19 80 the General Counsel moved to strike portions of the General Counsel's brief and to amend the ranscripi and reopen the record. That morion was opposed by Respondents D)anil and Clinton. I hereby deny the motion. FININ(,S () FAC( I I. JURItSI)C I( ION Respondent Clinton has offices and plants at Clinton, loss a. and its corporate headquarters at New York. Ne, York. It has various other plants, places of business, sarehouses, and facilities throughout the United States, inel(iding a plant, place of business, and facility located at Montezuma. New York, where it is engaged in the manufacture, sale, and distribution of corn products, in- cluding sweeteners, animal feed, and related products. In the course and conduct of its business operations, Re- spondent Clinton purchases. transfers, and delivers to its Montezuma, New York, plant goods and materials valued in excess of $50,000, which goods and materials are transported to said plant directly from States of the United States other than the State of New York. Respondent Daniel is a corporation with its headquar- ters, the Daniel Building, in Greenville, South Carolina, and a plant, place of business, and other facility located in Montezuma, New York, where it is continuously en- gaged at said plant in the business of providing and per- forming construction, maintenance, and related services. Annually, Respondent Daniel purchases, transfers, and delivers to its Montezuma, New York, plant goods and materials valued in excess of $50,000 directly from States other than the State of New York. Respondents Clinton and Daniel are now, and have been at all times material herein, employers engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. It. HI I . OR ORG.ANIZATION American Federation of Grain Millers, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. III. THI Al IGE) UNFAIR ABOR PRACTICES The Facts Respondent Clinton's Montezuma plant started operat- ing in December 1978. In January and February 1979, Respondent Daniel began providing Respondent Clinton with construction and maintenance services. Respondent Daniel has delegated to its superintendent, Paul Elliott, complete responsibility for the day-to-day operations in Montezuma. Among his job duties are coordinating the work which Daniel performs for Respondent Clinton, maintaining and implementing manpower and work schedules, insuring that the necessary tools, equipment, and supplies are on hand, and directing Respondent Dan- iel's supervisors. Superintendent Elliott has final and total authority over Respondent Daniel's labor relations at Montezuma. Respondent Daniel has a very small, one-room office at Montezuma. Respondent Clinton's personnel do not work in that office. Superintendent Elliott occupied that office along with employee Jeanne Good, who has been referred to as clerk-timekeeper or office manager. Among her duties were maintaining the personnel files of h23 I)4ICISI()NS OF) NAII()NAl. I .A()R RELI.ATIONS H()ARD Respondent Daniel employees, payroll functions, answer- ing the telephone, and receiving and sorting mail. Good was hired by Respondent Daniel on Monday, May 14, 1979, to work in Respondent I)aniel's office. In the beginning Good was involved in compilation of Re- spondent Daniel's employees' daily time and wage rates, which was then sent to Respondent Daniel's South Caro- lina office so that the weekly paychecks could he prc- pared and sent to the Montezuma plant. Good has previ- ously held jobs which involved confidential personnel in- fiormation such as wage rates. She testified that she as- sumced that the payroll information she worked with was also confidential. On the evening of May 17, 1979, Good went to the VFW hall in Montezuma, New York, to meet her hus- band and to pick up her daughter from a brownie meet- ing which she was attending at that hall. She entered. joined her husband and "the regulars" and ordered a drink. While there she learned that the Union was hold- ing a meeting for Respondent Clinton's employees in an upstairs room. The Union was not attempting to organize Respondent Daniel's employees. Good was not aware that a union was attempting to organize Respondent Clinton's employees until told by "the regulars" and her husband that she could get a free drink if she went to the union meeting, which by then had been moved to a downstairs room behind the bar. Good went to the meet- ing, received the free drink, made some remarks, and re- joined her husband and the regulars at the bar when the meeting ended. Shortly thereafter a fight broke out, and Good left VFW hall. Good testified that at the meeting she raised a question as to whether the Union could do anything for Respond- ent Daniel's employees, answered a question directed at her as to her own wage rate, and had a short conversa- tion with John Andry, union representative, at the end of the meeting as to whether employees of Respondent Daniel would be included in a union election. On the morning of May 18, 1979, Good mentioned to her supervisors, Elliott and Ivey Jarman, that she had witnessed a fight at the VFW on Thursday night (the night before). They asked her if she had gone to the union meeting. She answered she had gone to get a free drink. Good also testified that during the morning Elliott asked if she had signed any card and she answered that she had not because the Union could not help her anyway. At the end of the workday that Friday, Dave Peart from Respondent Clinton telephoned Elliott to advise him that Respondent Clinton had heard that Good dis- closed Respondent Daniel's confidential wage and salary information at the VFW the previous night. In that con- versation, Peart and Elliott also discussed work schedul- ing and related matters. Following the phone conversa- tion, Elliott called Jarman out of the office and discussed Peart's telephone call with him. They decided to ask Good if she disclosed confidential information as report- ed to them by Peart. Both Elliott and Jarman testified that when Good was asked whether she had disclosed confidential information at the meeting, she replied "Yes." On the other hand, Good testified on direct examination on being asked whether she ever admitted to Elliott and Jarman that she had revealed confidential wage rates, "No, I did not. When Mr. Elliott confronted me with that, my mouth fell open and a thousand things went through my head. And I said, I'm sorry." Good was also asked if she ever denied revealing any confidential wage data to either E'l- liott or Jarman. Her response was "No, I believe I said I don't remember saying anything about it." Good ad- mitted knowing what Respondent Daniel's wage rates were, and when asked whether the wage rates were uni- form her response was "Yes." Elliot gave Good a choice of resignation or termination." She resigned. Good's version According to Good, at the end of the afternoon on May 18, 1979, as she came in from running an errand, Elliott asked her to sit down and then told her "I'm going to have to let you go." Good replied, "You're kid- ding." Elliott responded, "No I'm perfectly serious. I just got a phone call from Clinton Corn saying that you were down at the VW plastered and shooting your mouth off about salaries and rates of pay. They told me to get rid of you." Good said "They can't do that." She said he then gave her a choice of resigning or being ter- minated, and she chose to resign. She stated further that while Elliott made out the termination slip, Jarman con- firmed the call from Clinton. Jarman then walked Good out to the gate and told her he was sorry they had to let her go, but if it had happened to Jarman, they would have let him go because Clinton did not want a union down there. Good testified that she admitted that she had disclosed her own rate but never admitted disclosing other wage rates, and, in fact, had not disclosed other wage rates at the meeting. International Union Representative John Andry testi- fied that he made a presentation at the union organizing meeting at the VFW hall. He said while at that meeting he met Jeanne Good. Andry did not recall when Good entered the meeting or when she left. He did recall talk- ing to her after the meeting. He stated that because of the confusion at the meeting he was not aware of any statements that Good made concerning wage rates. Elliott's version Elliott testified as follows: On the morning of Friday, May 18, 1979, Good came in and stated that she felt bad; that she had had too much to drink the night before. She said she had been to the VFW, that they had a union meeting there. She said that they had three drinks and that someone was smoking marijuana and there was a fight. She also said that someone slugged a lady. Around 4:15 p.m. that day I received a phone call from a Clinton Corn official who stated that he had a pretty reliable source that said that he had heard that Good revealed Daniel's wage structures at the union meeting the night before. I thanked him for the information and hung up. I then called Ivey Jarman, my general foreman, out of the room and told him the information that I had heard and 624 CLINTON CORN PROCESSING COMPANY we talked about approaching Good and investigat- ing to see if what I was told was true. We went back into the room and I asked Good if she re- vealed the wage structure at the meeting. She said she did. She said as the night progressed she didn't know what all she did say. Elliott denied stating to Good that "[t]hey told me I have to get rid of you." Or that "Clinton told me I have to get rid of you." He denied asking Good if she signed the union card; denied asking her who else attended the union meeting or the names of the people who attended the union meeting. He denied asking her the identity of the union organizers or their names or when the next union meeting was to take place. He said that no union had ever attempted to organize the Daniel employees on the Montezuma job. Elliott also denied ever stating to Good that Daniel knew the names of the people who were in attendance at the meeting. He said that no em- ployee of Respondent Clinton ever directed, instructed, or ordered him to terminate any Daniel employee. Ivey Jarman's testimony corroborated the substance of the testimony of Paul Elliott. Elliott and Jarman both testified that they never asked Good if she signed a union card, attended a union meeting, the names of anyone at the union meeting, whether Daniel enployees attended the union meeting, etc., nor did they hear each other ask such questions. Good's testimony did not con- tradict the testimony of Elliott and Jarman in any materi- al respect, except she signed a card. I credit Elliott and Jarman and conclude that the Gen- eral Counsel has failed to meet the burden of proof that Respondent Clinton or Respondent Daniel violated Sec- tion 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act by discharging Jeanne Good or violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by interroga- tion, or creating the impression of surveillance. Although I find that Jeanne Good was entitled to the protection of the Act, Respondent Daniel terminated Good for the sole reason that she disclosed confidential information. Farlow Rubber Supply, Inc., 193 NLRB 570 (1971); Vitronic, Incorporated, 183 NLRB 1067, 1076 (1970); Clearwater Finishing Company, 100 NLRB 1473 (1952), enfd. in pertinent part 203 F.2d 938 (4th Cir. 1953). Theodore Kijowski and the no-solicitation rule Theodore Kijowski, an employee of Respondent Clin- ton, engaged in the Union's organizing campaign at Re- spondent Clinton's Montezuma plant by soliciting union authorization cards from early July through September 28, 1979. Kijowski solicited only during his free time, coffeebreaks, lunchtime, and before or after work. He testified that as he approached his fellow employees and talked to them he did not stop anyone from working, al- though he did not know whether these employees were on a break at the time. Respondent Clinton's employee handbook Respondent Clinton's employee handbook dated Sep- tember 1976, provides under the paragraph "Solicitation and Notices," as follows: Posting of Notices and other written material on company property without prior written approval is prohibited. General circulation or posting requires the approval of the supervisor and the plant man- ager. Circulation or distribution of literature in working area or on working time and solicitation or any other form of disturbing emplovees during working prohibited. [Emphasis supplied.] On December 5, 1979, Respondent Clinton distributed the following to its employees under the title "Employee Manual Addendum," and under II thereof it reads, "Other employee conduct that is caused for disciplinary action up to and including discharge, includes, but is not limited to": 2. Bring on to company property or use newspa- pers, magazines, pictures, pamphlets, books, draw- ings, or other material not specifically authorized. * * * * * 4. Solicitation or any other form of disturbing, or intimidating, employees during working hours on company property. 5. In case of misunderstanding or difference in in- terpretation of the above rules, the decision of the Plant Manager is final. Kijowski testified that when the addendum was given to him, Thomas Bas, director of human resources, read it out loud to a meeting of employees and asked if there were any questions. But Kijowski indicated that he did not ask any questions. Respondent Clinton stipulated that by the issuance of the addenda no change in the no-so- licitation rule was affected. On September 28, 1979, Kijowski was given his 3- month evaluation. That evaluation contained, after the words supervisor comments, "Idle time could be utilized more efficiently. Several times employee has been in other work areas visiting and interrupting the work of others. Further acts of this nature will result in disciplin- ary action in the form of probation leading to and in- cluding discharge." That evaluation was dated Septem- ber 28, 1979. At the time he was given his evaluation Ki- jowski was interviewed by his leadman, Bob Smith, who signed the evaluation, and Smith's supervisor, Dave Chandler. No comments were made concerning the por- tion of the evaluation quoted above. Kijowski testified that, during that interview, either Smith or Chandler told him that he should not "cut them short and try to get the Union in." Neither Smith nor Chandler denied telling Kijowski to keep quiet about the evaluation and not to cut them short, but Chandler denied any mention of the Union. After receiving his evaluation, Kijowski stopped soliciting on behalf of the Union.3 W 'Wilh respect Io the denial h Chandler and Smith that the Union as mentioned during the ealuation interview, I credit Kijowski 'who was consislent, or good memory, and posilive in hi, testimony 625 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Respondent Clinton's no-solicitation rule The wording of Respondent Clinton's no-solicitation rule is too broad in that it refers to "working hours" as opposed to "working time" and is therefore presumptive- ly unlawful. Fayetteville Industrial Maintenance, Inc., 218 NLRB 888, 889 (1974). The use of the words "working hours" renders a rule susceptible to the interpretation that solicitation is pro- hibited during all business hours, and therefore unduly restricts employees' Section 7 rights. Although an am- biguous rule can be cured by showing that the rule was communicated to employees in such a way as to convey clearly an intent to permit solicitation during breaktime or other periods when employees are not actively at work, no such showing has been made herein. Essex In- ternational. Inc., 211 NLRB 749 (1974); McBrides of Naylor Road, 229 NLRB 795 (1977). The testimony ad- duced on behalf of Respondent Clinton is not sufficient to overcome the presumption of the unlawfulness of the rule. It does not show that Respondent Clinton commu- nicated the rule to its employees in such a way as to convey clearly an intent to permit solicitation during breaktime or other periods when employees are not ac- tively at work. Furthermore, with respect to Kijowski, the testimony is that he did not receive any "clarifica- tion," but that he engaged in solicitation on behalf of the Union only during his lunchtime, breaktimes, and before and after working hours, and he was charged with vio- lating the rule. Accordingly, I find that the warning contained in Ki- jowski's evaluation, even though Kijowski received a raise in pay following that evaluation, was an unlawful punishment inflicted by Respondent Clinton in an at- tempt to enforce an unlawful rule in violation of Section 8(a)(l) and (3) of the Act. See Stoddard-Quirk Manujac- luring Co., 138 NL.RB 615 (1962). Kijowski's testimony that he stopped soliciting after he was given a warning although he was soliciting only on his own time and not on company time is an indication, at a minimum, that Respondent Clinton did not commu- nicate to all of its employees that soliciting was permit- ted on breaks, lunchtime, and before or after work. Ki- jowski testified that Respondent Clinton's addendum, re- ferred to above, was read to a general meeting of em- ployees without explanation. The addendum not only fails to clarify the rule, but indeed broadens the rule by specifically prohibiting the bringing of any books, news- papers, etc., on company property. This is not restricted to work areas, and, thus, constitutes unlawful a no-distri- bution rule. Pepsi-Cola Bottling Co. of Los Angeles, 211 NLRB 870 (1974). find, therefore, that the maintenance of the no-solicitation and no-distribution rule in this case violates Section 8(a)(l) of the Act. Stoddard-Quirk Man- ufacturing Co. upra. CONCLUSIONS o01 LAW 1. Respondents Clinton and Daniel are employers within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 2. The Union is a labor organization within the mean- ing of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. Respondent Clinton violated Section 8(a)(l) of the Act by maintaining in effect an unlawful no-solicitation/ no-distribution rule. 4. Respondent Clinton has violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act by issuing a written warning to employee Theodore Kijowski in an attempt to force the unlawful no-solicitation/no-distribution rule. 5. Respondent Clinton has not violated Section 8(a)(l) and (3) of the Act by discharging Jeanne Good. 6. Respondent Daniel has not violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act by discharging Jeanne Good. 7. Respondent Daniel has not violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by interrogation or creating the impression of surveillance as alleged in the complaint. 8. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) aid (7) of the Act. THE REMEI)Y Having found that Respondent Clinton has engaged in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act, I shall recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and that it take certain affirmative action de- signed to effectuate the policies of the Act. Having found that Respondent Clinton maintained a "no-solicita- tion/no-distribution rule, which is too broad, and there- fore unlawful; and having found that Respondent Clinton unlawfully punished Theodore Kijowski in an attempt to enforce that unlawful rule, I shall recommend that Re- spondent Clinton cease giving effect to the no-solicita- tion/no-distribution rule and to expunge from its records the written warning contained in employee Theodore R. Kijowski's evaluation dated September 28, 1979. Upon the foregoing findings and conclusions and the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act. I hereby issue the following recommended: ORDER 4 The Respondent, Clinton Corn Processing Company, a Division of Standard Brands, Incorporated, Montezuma, New York, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: I. Cease and desist from: (a) Maintaining in effect the following rules contained in the employee handbook and addendum which prohibit employees from engaging in the following: Bring on to company property or use newspapers, magazines, pictures, pamphlets, books, drawings or other material not specifically authorized. Solicitation or any other form of disturbing, or in- timidating, employees during working hours on company property. I4 n the eent rio exceptions are filed as provldld h Sec' 1)2 46 ofr he Rules arid Regulations of he National abor Relalions Itoard, the find- ings, c(ncluslonrs, and recommended Order herein shall. as prosided in Sec 12 48 o the Rules and Regulaionr,, he adopted by the Board and becorm Ii, finldings, conclusions. aid ()rder, ad all objectians thereto shall he dleened aied for all purposes 626 CLINTON CORN PROCESSING CO()MPANY (b) Punishing any employee by written warnings in an attempt to enforce the above rules. (c) In any like or related manner interfering with, re- straining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the fllowing affirmative action which is nec- essary to effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Expunge from its records the written warning conl- lained in Theodore R. Kijowski's evaluation, dated Sep- tember 28, 1979. (b) Rescind the above-quoted rules from the employee handbook and addendum, and advise, in writing, each employee to whom it has given such handbook that said rules have been rescinded. (c) Post at its plant in Montezuma, New York, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix."5 Copies of 5 In the event that this Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United States Court of Appeals. the words in he notice reading "P'lsted hy said notice on frms provided by the Regional Director for Region 3, after being duly signed by Respondent, shall be posted by it immediately upon receipt thereof. and be maintained by it for 60() consecutive days hereaf- ter, ill conspicuous places, including all places where no- tices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to insure that said no- tices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 3, in writ- ing, within 2() days from the date of this Order, what steps have been taken to comply herewith. 3. All allegations of the consolidated complaint not specifically found to be violations are hereby dismissed. ()rdr of Ihe Nauional l.ahor Relations Board" shall read lPo'ed P'ursu- anl to a Judgment of the Illrted Sates Court of Appeals t-nforcing an ()rder of the Natronal I abor Re;allions HBoard" 627