NLRB Cases Archive 1960 - 1995, LABOR-RELATIONS 1993-94 CCH-NLRB ¶15,485, BROTHER INDUSTRIES (U.S.A.), INC. and INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS LOCAL 474., (Sep. 20, 1994), National Labor Relations Board, (Sep 20, 1994)

BROTHER INDUSTRIES (U.S.A.), INC. and INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS LOCAL 474.

314 NLRB No. 198.Case Nos. 26-CA-15556 and -15660. September 20, 1994 Frank H. Itkin, Administrative Law Judge..

Before Gould, Browning and Cohen.

Rosalind Eddins and John Goree, for General Counsel. James H. Stock, Jr. and J. Gregory Grisham, for Respondent. Benny Goolsby and James Anderson, for Charging Party.

Interference--Discharges as--Concerted, Protected Petition.--By warning, suspending and discharging an employee because she circulated a petition complaining about a supervisor and conditions of employment, an employer interfered with its employees’ right to engage in such activity. The employer attempted to claim that it had a good-faith belief that the employee was violating its no-solicitation and no-distribution policy, but that was proven to be false because the employer had tolerated previous solicitation and distribution on its premises. Section 8(a)(1).

Back reference: ¶3830.522.

Interference--Enforcement of Working Time Restrictions--Antiunion Sentiment Evidenced.--An employer evidenced its antiunion sentiment by enforcing worktime restrictions upon its employees that interfered with their right to freely select a bargaining representative. Those unlawful acts included prohibiting the distribution by employees of union leaflets in the employee parking lot, engaging in surveillance of the employees’ union activities and threatening an employee with discharge for engaging in protected concerted activities. Section 8(a)(1).

Back reference: ¶3825.10.

From Text of Board’s Decision

The Board has considered the record in light of the exceptions and briefs and has decided to affirm the judge’s rulings, [1] findings, and conclusions [2] and to adopt the recommended Order.

The Respondent has excepted to some of the judge’s credibility findings. The Board’s established policy is not to overrule an administrative law judge’s credibility resolutions unless the clear preponderance of all the relevant evidence convinces us that they are incorrect. Standard Dry Wall Products, 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd. [19 LC ¶66,308] 188 F.2d 362 (3d Cir. 1951). We have carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing the findings.

The Respondent argues it had a “good-faith” belief that employee Lisa Ham engaged in misconduct by her repeated violations of Respondent’s no-solicitation, no-distribution rule. As found by the judge, in the past the Respondent readily tolerated numerous violations of its no-solicitation, no-distribution rule. Ham’s activities were consistent with the Respondent’s practice and, therefore, did not constitute misconduct. Accordingly, we agree with the judge that the Respondent did not have an honest belief that Ham engaged in misconduct. Rather, the Respondent’s attempts to enforce the rule against Ham’s protected activities constituted unlawful disparate enforcement of its rule.

In view of our agreement with the judge’s finding that employee Ham and her coworkers did not seek to effect the discharge of Personnel Director Gilley, but rather petitioned the Respondent to listen to their complaints about working conditions, we find it unnecessary to rely on Hoytuck Corp., [1987-88 CCH NLRB ¶19,020] 285 NLRB 904 (1987), and related cases.

Chairman Gould questions the validity of cases which find unprotected employee concerted activity designed solely to effect or influence changes in the management hierarchy. However, he finds it unnecessary to resolve that issue in this case because he agrees with the judge and his colleagues that Ham did not seek to effect or influence changes of this nature and her conduct was protected under existing precedent.

NLRB Cases Archive 1960 - 1995, LABOR-RELATIONS 1993-94 CCH-NLRB ¶15,485, BROTHER INDUSTRIES (U.S.A.), INC. and INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS LOCAL 474., (Sep. 20, 1994), National Labor Relations Board, (Sep 20, 1994)

BROTHER INDUSTRIES (U.S.A.), INC. and INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS LOCAL 474.

314 NLRB No. 198.Case Nos. 26-CA-15556 and -15660. September 20, 1994 Frank H. Itkin, Administrative Law Judge..

Before Gould, Browning and Cohen.

Rosalind Eddins and John Goree, for General Counsel. James H. Stock, Jr. and J. Gregory Grisham, for Respondent. Benny Goolsby and James Anderson, for Charging Party.

Back reference: ¶3830.522.

Back reference: ¶3825.10.

From Text of Board’s Decision

The Board has considered the record in light of the exceptions and briefs and has decided to affirm the judge’s rulings, [1] findings, and conclusions [2] and to adopt the recommended Order.

NLRB Cases Archive 1960 - 1995, LABOR-RELATIONS 1993-94 CCH-NLRB ¶15,485, BROTHER INDUSTRIES (U.S.A.), INC. and INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS LOCAL 474., (Sep. 20, 1994), National Labor Relations Board, (Sep 20, 1994)

From Text of Board’s Decision

Footnotes

NLRB Cases Archive 1960 - 1995, LABOR-RELATIONS 1993-94 CCH-NLRB ¶15,485, BROTHER INDUSTRIES (U.S.A.), INC. and INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS LOCAL 474., (Sep. 20, 1994), National Labor Relations Board, (Sep 20, 1994)

From Text of Board’s Decision

Footnotes