Automatic Screw Products

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 2, 1992

306 N.L.R.B. 1072 (N.L.R.B. 1992)

1072
306 NLRB No. 215
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Automatic Screw Products Co., Inc. and John Hart-
man. Case 8–CA–23830
April 2, 1992
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN STEPHENS AND MEMBERS OVIATT
AND RAUDABAUGH
Upon a charge filed by John Hartman, an individual,
on August 15, 1991, the General Counsel of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board issued a complaint on
September 25, 1991, against the Company, the Re-
spondent, alleging that it has violated Section 8(a)(1)
of the National Labor Relations Act. Subsequently, the
Respondent filed an answer, admitting in part and de-
nying in part the allegations of the complaint, asserting
the affirmative defense that the complaint fails to state
a claim upon which relief can be granted, and request-
ing that the complaint be dismissed.
Thereafter, on January 21, 1992, the General Coun-
sel, by counsel, filed with the Board in Washington,
D.C., a Motion for Summary Judgment, with exhibits
attached. The General Counsel submits that there is no
genuine issue about any material fact and that sum-
mary judgment should be granted. The General Coun-
sel requests that the Board find that the Respondent
has violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act and issue an
order requiring the Respondent to cease and desist and
to take appropriate affirmative action.
On January 27, 1992, the Board issued an order
transferring the proceeding to the Board and a Notice
to Show Cause why the General Counsel’s motion
should not be granted. On February 7, 1992, the Re-
spondent filed a brief in opposition to the General
Counsel’s Motion for Summary Judgment.
The National Labor Relations Board has delegated
its authority in this proceeding to a three-member
panel.
Upon the entire record in this proceeding, the Board
makes the following
Ruling on the Motion for Summary Judgment
In its answer to the complaint and in its opposition
to the Motion for Summary Judgment, the Respondent
admits the following complaint allegations: (1) about
March 1, 1991, the Respondent verbally promulgated,
and, since that date, has maintained a rule prohibiting
discussions among its employees about their salaries;
(2) in June or July 1991, and also on July 26, 1991,
the Respondent’s president, Bruce Bacik, advised an
employee that it prohibited discussions among employ-
ees about salaries; and (3) on July 29, 1991, Bacik ad-
vised employee John Hartman that he had violated the
rule and the Respondent discharged him for that rea-
son. The Respondent, however, denies the complaint
allegations that (1) it discharged Hartman ‘‘in order to
discourage’’ employees from engaging in activities
protected by Section 7 of the Act, and that (2) the al-
leged behavior constitutes unfair labor practices under
Section 8(a)(1).
The General Counsel contends that the Respondent’s
answer admits all facts necessary to support finding all
unfair labor practices alleged and that thus no hearing
is necessary. We agree.
The Respondent, in its response to the Notice to
Show Cause, offers to show only that no union orga-
nizing activities were ongoing at its facility either
when the rule at issue was first promulgated or when
Hartman was discharged for violating it. The Respond-
ent’s legal contention is therefore that the proscribed
behavior was not concerted because neither the rule
nor the discharge was intended to prevent its employ-
ees from engaging in activities protected by Section 7.
We find that the Respondent’s contention is without
merit because it raises an issue that is irrelevant. In
Triana Industries, 245 NLRB 1258 (1979), the Board
addressed this precise issue and found it
irrelevant that [respondent’s statement forbidding
discussion of wages] did not occur during a pe-
riod of organizational activity. An employer who
restrains employees in the exercise of rights guar-
anteed them under Section 7 violates the Act no
less because his employees have chosen to exer-
cise their rights independent of union representa-
tion. Furthermore, such discussion may be nec-
essary as a precursor to seeking union assistance
and is clearly concerted activity.
Thus, the Respondent in this case has presented no
material facts at issue which require a hearing, as all
material facts have been admitted and we have rejected
its legal argument.
Accordingly, we grant the Motion for Summary
Judgment and we find that the Respondent violated
Section 8(a)(1) by promulgating and maintaining a rule
prohibiting employees from discussing their salaries—
an inherently concerted activity clearly protected by
Section 7 of the Act. Triana, supra; Scientific-Atlanta,
Inc., 278 NLRB 622, 624–625 (1986). It follows that
the Respondent also violated Section 8(a)(1) by advis-
ing specific employees of the content of the unlawful
rule, because such conduct has a natural tendency to
restrain them in the exercise of their Section 7 right to
learn about and assess such a vital term and condition
of employment as the salaries paid by their employer.
Finally, we find that the Respondent violated Section
8(a)(1) by advising employee John Hartman that he
had violated its rule against discussing salaries and dis-
charging him for that reason. It is axiomatic that it is
an unfair labor practice to discipline an employee for
breaching a rule that is itself unlawful under the Act.
Scientific-Atlanta, supra, 278 NLRB at 626.
1073AUTOMATIC SCREW PRODUCTS CO.
1 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
National Labor Relations Board’’ shall read ‘‘Posted Pursuant to a
Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order
of the National Labor Relations Board.’’
On the basis of the entire record, the Board makes
the following
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. JURISDICTION
The Respondent, an Ohio corporation with an office
and place of business in Cleveland, Ohio, is engaged
in the manufacture and distribution of screws, fittings,
seals, and related products. Annually, in the course and
conduct of its business operations, the Respondent sold
and shipped from its Cleveland, Ohio facility products,
goods, and materials valued in excess of $50,000 to
points outside the State of Ohio. We find that the Re-
spondent is an employer engaged in commerce within
the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
II. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
As set forth above, the actions of the Respondent in
promulgating and maintaining a rule prohibiting dis-
cussions among employees about their salaries, advis-
ing employees that it prohibited such discussions, and
by discharging employee John Hartman because he
violated that rule, constitute interference, restraint, and
coercion of its employees in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed them in Section 7 of the Act.
Accordingly, we find that such actions are unfair
labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1)
of the Act.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Automatic Screw Products Co., Inc. is an em-
ployer engaged in commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. By promulgating and maintaining a rule prohib-
iting discussions among employees about their salaries,
by advising employees on several occasions that it pro-
hibited such discussions, and by discharging employee
John Hartman because he violated that unlawful rule,
the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices
affecting commerce within the meaning of Section
8(a)(1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in
certain unfair labor practices, we shall order it to cease
and desist and to take certain affirmative action de-
signed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
We shall order the Respondent to offer employee
John Hartman immediate and full reinstatement to his
former job or, if that job no longer exists, to a substan-
tially equivalent position, without prejudice to his se-
niority or other rights or privileges previously enjoyed,
and to make him whole for any loss of earnings and
other benefits suffered as a result of the discrimination
against him. Backpay shall be computed as prescribed
in F. W. Woolworth Co., 90 NLRB 289 (1950), with
interest to be computed in the manner prescribed in
New Horizons for the Retarded, 283 NLRB 1173
(1987). We shall order the Respondent to remove from
its files any references to the unlawful discharge of
John Hartman and to notify him in writing that this has
been done and that the discharge will not be used
against him in any way. We shall also order the Re-
spondent to rescind its rule prohibiting discussions
among its employees about their salaries.
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board orders that the
Respondent, Automatic Screw Products Co., Inc.,
Cleveland, Ohio, its officers, agents, successors, and
assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Promulgating and maintaining rules prohibiting
discussions among employees about their salaries.
(b) Advising employees that it prohibits discussions
among employees about their salaries.
(c) Discharging employees for engaging in protected
concerted activity.
(d) In any like or related manner interfering with,
restraining, 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) Offer John Hartman reinstatement to his former
job or, if that job no longer exists, offer him a substan-
tially equivalent position, without prejudice to his se-
niority or other rights or privileges previously enjoyed,
and make him whole for any loss of earnings and other
benefits suffered as a result of his unlawful discharge,
in the manner set forth in the remedy section of this
decision.
(b) Remove from its files any reference to the un-
lawful discharge of John Hartman and notify him in
writing that this has been done and that the unlawful
action will not be used against him in any way.
(c) Rescind the rule which prohibits discussions
among employees about their salaries.
(d) Preserve and, on request, make available to the
Board or its agents for examination and copying, all
payroll records, social security payment records, time-
cards, personnel records and reports, and all other
records necessary to analyze the amount of backpay
due under the terms of this Order.
(e) Post at its Cleveland, Ohio location copies of the
attached notice marked ‘‘Appendix.’’1 Copies of the
notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for
1074 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Region 8, after being signed by the Respondent’s au-
thorized representative, shall be posted by the Re-
spondent immediately upon receipt and maintained for
60 consecutive days in conspicuous places where no-
tices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable
steps shall be taken by the Respondent to ensure that
the notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any
other material.
(f) Notify the Regional Director in writing within 20
days from the date of this Order what steps the Re-
spondent has taken to comply.
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 promulgate and maintain rules prohib-
iting discussions among employees about their salaries.
WE WILL NOT advise our employees that we prohibit
discussions among them about their salaries.
WE WILL NOT discharge employees for engaging in
protected concerted activity.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere
with, restrain, or coerce you in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed you by Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL offer John Hartman his former job or, if
such job no longer exists, offer him a substantially
equivalent position, without prejudice to his seniority
or any other rights or privileges previously enjoyed,
and WE WILL make him whole for his loss of earnings
and other benefits resulting from his discharge, with
interest.
WE WILL remove from our files any reference to the
unlawful demotion or forced resignation of John Hart-
man and notify him in writing that this has been done
and that the unlawful action will not be used against
him in any way.
WE WILL rescind the rule which prohibits discus-
sions among employees about their salaries.
AUTOMATIC SCREW PRODUCTS CO., INC.