Genesee Merchants Bank & Trust Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsOct 4, 1973

206 N.L.R.B. 274 (N.L.R.B. 1973)

274 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Genesee Merchants Bank & Trust Co. and Local 393, Office and Professional Employees International Union, AFL-CIO. Case 7-CA-9824- October 4, 1973 DECISION AND ORDER By CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS KENNEDY AND PENELLO On March 28, 1973, Administrative Law Judge John M. Dyer issued the attached Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that Respondent had engaged in, and was engaging in, unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) and 2(6) and (7) of the Act by main- taining and enforcing a general policy or rule discour- aging solicitations or distribution of literature on its premises. Thereafter, Respondent filed exceptions and a supporting brief, and the General Counsel filed cross-exceptions with a supporting brief and a brief in opposition to Respondent's exceptions. Respondent filed a motion to strike cross-exceptions, a brief in support of the motion, and a brief in opposition to the cross-exceptions.' 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 reviewed the rulings of the Adminis- trative Law Judge and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Administrative Law Judge's Decision, the exceptions, cross-exceptions, and briefs by the Respondent and General Counsel, and the, entire record in the case, and adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Adminis- trative Law Judge only to the extent consistent here- with. Respondent Genesee Merchants Bank & Trust leases approximately one-half of the rented space in a multilevel building in Flint, Michigan. The building is owned by two companies which retained Piper Re- ality Company (herein Piper Realty) as a manage- ment and leasing agent. On June 12, 1972, Piper Realty sent a letter to Bill Piper who is head of the bank's operations. A copy was sent to Robert Starks, a vice president of Respon- dent and head of personnel. In summary, the letter states that Piper Realty had been bothered with peo- ple passing out literature and soliciting signatures for i The motion to strike is denied as Respondent, which filed a brief in opposition to the cross-exceptions, was not prejudiced by the General Counsel's filing of his cross-exceptions 1 day late various drives,,and by door-to-door salesmen. It con- tinues that the building management's policy is not to permit such activities and asks that anyone requesting permission for such activities be advised of the build- ing policy and if they have any questions to refer them to Piper Realty. Local 393, Office and Professional Employees In- ternational Union, AFL-CIO (herein the Union), in- formed Respondent by letter dated June 29, 1972, that a group of employees were engaged in an organizing effort. Costanzo and four other employees were named in the letter as union organizers. The letter stated, inter alia, that employees had the right to dis- tribute literature on behalf of the union during non- work times and in nonwork areas on company property. Before any union distributions were made, Costanzo visited Vice President Robert Starks and asked him what he considered to be the nonwork areas of the Bank. Starks defined the nonwork areas as the hallways, the cafeteria,2 the bank lobby, the street, and "possibly" the ladies restrooms, although he was not sure about the area because that area was not actually leased by the bank.' During the course of the next few weeks until the end of July, Costanzo made four separate distribu- tions of literature primarily in the cafeteria and in the ladies restrooms. Starks was aware of all four distribu- tions but not aware of any littering until the fifth distribution. Costanzo was not hindered in any man- ner concerning the first four distributions. William Curnow, also a vice president of Respon- dent, talked to Costanzo in the hallway sometime be- fore the fifth distribution and asked if she were aware that there was a memorandum prohibiting solicitation in the building. She, answered no. She went to see Starks who handed her a copy of Piper Realty's letter and explained that there were limitations on where she could post because of building policy established by Piper Realty. Thereafter she made the fifth distri- bution. The head of the installment loan department called Starks and complained of union literature on the floor and behind the mirror in the ladies restroom on the 10th floor and indicated that Costanzo was responsible. Starks called Costanzo into his office and told her, of the litter situation in the 10th floor ladies restroom and asked if she were responsible. She said no. She testified that Starks said, "Didn't I tell you there was no soliciting in the building?" to which she replied, "No, you didn't. Piper Realty did." When queried as to whether he mentioned litter, she testi- 2 The cafeteria area was leased by the bank for the use of its employees only. 3 The 10th floor ladies restroom where the distribution of union literature which gave rise to the present controversy occurred is used by the female employees of four other tenants in addition to the female bank employees working on the 10th floor 206 NLRB No. 74 GENESEE MERCHANTS BANK & TRUST CO. 275 fied, "He told me-well, I said that the National La- bor Board [sic] says I can distribute literature and he told me that he was advised by his attorneys that even the National Labor Board [sic] couldn't do anything about it because it contributed to litter in the build- ing." 4 He did not discipline her in any way. After the fifth distribution, Costanzo apparently did not dis- tribute any more union literature in the building.' While the record reflects that Respondent had an unwritten policy generally discouraging distribution and solicitation of any kind, it was not enforced with regard to union distribution or solicitation 6 The Respondent's position is that it does not like any kind of solicitation and discourages it but doesn't "jump on it." Respondent did adopt a rule regarding union dis- Aribution. Once within the past 3 years and again on July 13, 1972 (at the outset of the union campaign and before any distribution had begun), Starks held a meeting with the first-line supervisors and distributed a booklet entitled "Some Guidelines for Supervisors During Union Organization Attempts" which states in pertinent part that a supervisor can "[p]revent dis- tribution of union literature in work areas (because of clutter and plant safety)" and cannot "[p]revent distri- bution of literature in non-work areas such as parking lots." 7 Starks told the supervisors that, if union litera- ture was distributed in a litter-like fashion, the bank would take exception to it and that any and all ques- tions concerning solicitation and distribution of union literature should be referred to the president of the bank or to Starks. Contrary to the Administrative Law Judge, we find that Respondent's general unwritten policy discour- aging solicitation and distribution is not a violation of the Act. It was not enforced with regard to union solicitation or distribution and there is no evidence that it was ever promulgated to any employee. Respondent's, written rule regarding union solicita- tion and distribution, as contained in the guidelines, is entirely lawful.8 4 Starks testified that he had a total of two meetings with Costanzo con- cermng distribution of union literature instead of the three meetings testified to by Costanzo . His testimony is to the effect that the showing of the Piper Reality letter and the talk about the litter in the restroom occurred in the same meeting which was subsequent to the fifth distribution . The Adminis- trative Law Judge does not resolve this testimonial discrepancy . A compari- son of the sequence of events to the content of the conversations suggests there were actually three meetings 5 At the hearing she was never asked why she stopped distributing litera- ture at the building. 6 The Administrative Law Judge does not find that the rule was promulgat- ed to any employee other than Costanzo We do not believe it was even promulgated to her. Were is no evidence that Starks expressly told Costanzo about the rule. Also, Starks testified that no employee was ever disciplined for union distribution or solicitation during his tenure as personnel manager (1968 to present). 7 There has been no charge or complaint filed with regard to this rule 8 Republic Aviation Corporation v. N.L R B 324 U.S. 793 (1945); Stoddard- Quirk Manufacturing Co., 138 NLRB 615. The fact that Respondent has a Again, unlike the Administrative Law Judge, we do not believe that Starks adopted the Piper Realty poli- cy for Respondent. Both Starks and Costanzo testi- fied that at the first meeting he was unsure whether she could distribute literature in the restrooms be- cause they were under the control of Piper, Realty (as managing agent for the owners of the building). The bank does not lease the restrooms and they are open to the employees of the other tenants in the building. Starks showed the recently received Piper Realty let- ter to explain Piper Realty's policies regarding distri- bution and solicitation in areas of the building under the control of Piper Realty. Piper Realty is not re- quired to open up those areas of the building under its control for union distributions to the employees of a tenant .9 Any misunderstanding by Costanzo as to Curnow's characterization of the Piper Realty memo- randum was cleared up when Costanzo saw Starks and read the memo. Neither during their second or third meeting did Starks indicate that Respondent was going to apply Piper's rule to areas under the bank's control. He merely informed Constanzo of the rule as it applied to the public areas of the building. Finally, in contrast to the Administrative Law Judge, we believe Starks only prohibited such distri- butions of literature as caused litter and this was made clear to Costanzo. She made four distributions aware of her right to distribute in nonwork areas of the bank, knowing fully that because of the Union's June 29 letter Respondent was informed of her rights and ac- tivities. When Starks spoke to her about the distribu- tion of literature, the conversation was clearly limited to the existence of litter after the most recent distribu- tion.10 Her remark that Starks said there was no soli- citing in the building is qualified by her later testimony regarding the same meeting where she ac- knowledged that in reply to her insistence on a right to distribute literature, Starks stated that the Board could not do anything about it when it contributed to litter in the building. We shall therefore dismiss the complaint in its en- tirety. AMENDED CONCLUSION OF LAW Substitute the following for the Administrative Law Judge's Conclusions of Law 3: "3. Respondent, by maintaining and enforcing a general policy or rule discouraging solicitations or general rule discouraging distribution and a separate rule for union distribu- tion works no harm on the employees since the union distribution rule conforms to the law and is less restrictive than the general policy discourag- ini distribution. See N L.R B v. The Babcock & Wilcox Company, 351 U.S. 105, 113 (1956); G. C. Murphy Company, 171 NLRB 370. 10 Respondent can prevent the distribution of literature which occurs in such a manner as to cause litter. Erie Marine, Inc., 192 NLRB No. 119. 276 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD distribution of literature on its premises, did not vio- late Section 8(a)(1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act." ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Rela- tions Board hereby orders that the complaint be, and it hereby is, dismissed. DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE considered. I have concluded that Respondent's general policy of discouraging solicitation or distribution of literature on its premises, as implemented by the Piper Realty Company letter, was made known to at least one employee, Mrs. Costanzo, and that such policy violates Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. On the entire record in this case, including my evaluation of the reliability of the witnesses, based on the evidence received and my observation of their demeanor and the nature and manner In which responses were made, I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT JOHN M. DYER, Administrative Law Judge: Local 393, Office and Professional Employees International Union, AFL-CIO, herein called the Union, filed a charge on Sep- tember 19, 1972,1 alleging that Genesee Merchants Bank & Trust Company, herein called Respondent or the bank, vio- lated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act on and after July 18, by prohibiting employee distribution of union literature in nonwork areas during nonwork time. The Acting-Regional Director of Region 7 issued a complaint on October 30, which alleges that since latter July Respondent interfered with its employees' rights by maintaining an unwritten work policy prohibiting the distribution of literature (including union literature) or soliciting (including union solicitation) without permission and that by applying this policy which is applicable to nonworking areas and nonwork time as well as working time and working areas, Respondent sought to and did interfere with its employees' rights and violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. Respondent's answer of November 2 admits "... only that it has maintained an unwritten work policy which gen- erally prohibits the distribution of literature or other related items and solicitation without permission." Respondent stated that this policy had existed long prior to July and denied that it had been applied to union literature distribu- tion or solicitation during nonwork times either in nonwork or work areas. Respondent denied applying its policy so as to squelch its employees' union activities and generally de- nied that it had in any way violated the Act. The answer admitted the requisite jurisdictional and commerce facts and the supervisory status of Respondent's named officers. All parties were afforded full opportunity to appear, to examine and cross-examine witnesses,2 and to argue orally at the hearing held on February 15, 1973 in Flushing, Michi- gan. Respondent has filed a brief which has been carefully i Unless specifically stated otherwise all dates herein refer to 1972. 2 In its beef Respondent claims that it was unable to properly litigate -the issue of discriminatory application of its no-solicitation rule, claiming that such issue was not raised by the complaint and it was not prepared to defend that issue . It held that the issue was contained within the complaint allega- tions, but to avoid prejudice to Respondent's case, Respondent 's counsel was - instructed to proceed with his planned defense and that at the conclusion of such, the question of whether Respondent needed an adjournment for further investigation and trial could be raised and decided. Respondent proceeded with its case and then rested , stating it had no further witnesses and not raising the question of adjournment . If Respondent now means to claim prejudice as its brief would seem to indicate, it is in error. 1. BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT AND THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED Respondent is a Michigan corporation with its principal office and,place of business in Flint, Michigan, where it engaged in providing commercial banking services to cus- tomers in the area. Respondent maintains other places of business in Michigan but only the main office in Flint, Michigan, is involved in this proceeding. During the past year, Respondent's gross income was in excess of $500,000 and during that same period it transferred funds in excess of $50,000 to banks and other financial institutions outside the State of Michigan. Respondent admits and I find that it is an employer en- gaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. Respondent admits and I find that the Union herein is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. II. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE A. Background and Undisputed Facts Respondent under a lease occupies about half of the rent- ed space in a large multistoried building in Flint, Michigan. The building is owned, according to the testimony, by Na- tional Building Company and Overseas Investors who have retained the services of Piper Realty Company as a manage- ment and leasing agent. Respondent occupies the ground floor and a number of floors above it and it would appear to the passerby that this is the bank's building. The install- ment loan department where Mrs. Costanzo worked is on the 10th floor. Other tenants besides Respondent occupy space on the 10th floor. Robert J. Starks is a vice president of Respondent and the head of its personnel branch. As such, he is in charge of some 700 employees. William C. -Curnow is another Re- spondent vice president and has charge of the installment loan division. William Piper is head of Respondent's opera- tions. - In his testimony concerning the no-solicitation, no-distri- bution rule Starks, in agreement with the answer, stated that Respondent has a general policy that discourages solicita- tion and enrollment of employees for any purposes during banking time in banking areas. Included in this statement GENESEE MERCHANTS BANK & TRUST CO. 277 was all the premises occupied by the bank and not just public or work areas. Despite this policy he said the bank sponsors solicitations such as the United Fund, Cancer Drive, Red Cross Bloodmobile, and educational courses given by the American Institute of Banking. Starks admit- ted that other quasi-charitable drives took place without interference from the bank since he saw Girl Scout cookies being brought into the building and assumed that such sales had been solicited and distribution was being made in the bank. The rule as he enunciated it also applies to distribu- tion of literature and has been made known to Respondent's supervisors, but according to Starks has not been promul- gated to the employees. It is up to the supervisors, he stated, to enforce the policy when they see it being violated. Some years ago a booklet entitled "some Guidelines for Supervisors During Union Organization Attempt" was dis- tributed to the supervisors during a union campaign. When the present campaign began Starks held a July 6 meeting with the bank's top management and a second meeting on July 13, with the first line supervisors, and again distributed this booklet. It is set up on a "can do," "cannot do" basis and states under "can do" that the supervisor can "Prevent distribution of union literature in work area (because of clutter and plant safety)" and under "cannot do" is "Pre- vent distribution of literature in non-work areas such as parking lots." At these two meetings the supervisors were told to refer any and all questions concerning soliciting or the distribution of literature to thepresident of the bank or Starks and that Respondent was not going to allow distribu- tion of literature to the point where it caused it a litter problem. Piper Realty Company sent a letter dated June 12 to Bill Piper, head of the bank's operation with a copy to Starks. In summary the letter states that Piper Realty has been bothered with people passing out literature and soliciting signatures for various drives and by door-to-door salesmen. It says that the building's policy is not to permit such activi- ties and asks that anyone requesting permission for such activities be advised of the building policy and if they have any questions to refer them to Piper Realty. On June 29, the Union wrote to the bank advising that a group of Respondent's employees were engaged in an organizing effort and named four employees in addition to Mrs. Costanzo. There is no evidence to indicate that the bank would have had any prior knowledge of the organizing activity or the identity of the participating employees. B. The General Counsel's Case General Counsel's case rests on Respondent's admitted policy to discourage distribution or solicitation in the areas it rents or controls. Margaret Costanzo testified that on July 23 or 24, she prepared a leaflet for distribution and gave a copy of it to Mr. Starks' secretary and later distributed the memo by placing a copy on each of the tables in the cafete- ria and a copy on the shelf in the women's restrooms on each of the, floors where Respondent had offices. On July 26 her supervisor sent her to Mr. Starks who showed her a copy of the leaflet and asked if she had distributed it. She said she had and testified that Starks said "Didn't I tell you not to?" She said no and Starks said "Didn't I tell you there was no solicitating in the building?" She said "No, you didn't. Piper Realty did." She testified that she did not attempt to distribute any of the literature in the building after this conversation. When cross-examined in relation to litter she said she told Starks she could distribute literature and he said that he had been advised by his attorneys that the National Labor Relations Board would not do anything about ,it when it contributed to litter in the building. In attempting to show discriminatory application of Respondent's rule, Mrs. Costanzo testified that Donna Parks (whom she identified as an assistant supervisor) repre- sented Avon Products and Tupperware, showing catalogues to employees, soliciting sales, having them fill out order blanks and distributing the products at the building. She stated that close to paydays the catalogues for Tupperware and Avon were placed in a wire basket on Parks' desk with order blanks and employees from the first and second shifts were aware of their location and that supervisors would pass by the desk where the catalogues and occasionally the prod- ucts were in plain view, Mrs. Costanzo's testimony did not support her assessment of supervisory status for Donna Parks and there was affirmative testimony that during the summer of 1972 Parks was not a supervisor but did become one in December. General Counsel also adduced vague testimony concerning bank posters which were on the walls of the cafeteria, but more concise testimony showed them to be ornamental posters for decorative purposes. During cross-examination Mrs. Costanzo admitted that the leaflet in question was the fifth distribution she had effected in the building. She testified that around the end of June she prepared a notice which she wanted to place on the bulletin board in the installment loan department and went to see Mr. Starks about it. This visit followed the June 29 union letter to the Company. Starks said she could not post her notice on the bulletin board and she asked him what were the nonworking areas in the building so she could distribute the notice. Starks said that the nonwork areas would consist of the hallways, the cafeteria, probably the restrooms, and certainly the street. In addition to this first notice she prepared another leaflet and distributed it and two union prepared leaflets by leaving a copy on each of the tables in the cafeteria and a copy on the shelf in each of the women's restrooms. She stated she would check periodically to see if the leaflets were taken and would replace them. She admitted that nothing was said to her concerning the first four distributions by any of her supervisors. Also during her cross-examination she testified that Mr. Curnow, apparently sometime near her fifth distribution, talked to her in the hallway and asked if she was aware there was a memorandum prohibiting solicitation in the building. She said she was not and that Mr. Starks had told her the areas where she could distribute. Curnow said he just want- ed her to know about it. After not seeing such a memoran- dum she said she went to see Mr. Starks a few days later and was handed a copy of the letter from Piper Realty Compa- ny. She said she started to leave with it and Starks asked for it back. At a later point in her testimony Mrs. Costanzo said it was after being called in by Starks after the fifth distribu- tion that Starks showed her the Piper Realty letter which she took as an instruction forbidding literature distribution. She stated that she did not distribute any literature after - this 278 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD July 26 meeting. Starks testified that he was aware of the five distributions made by Mrs. Costanzo and had two conversations with her concerning distribution of literature. He testified that in the first conversation, Mrs. Costanzo said she thought Donna Parks was trying to set her up because of her union activi- ties. They then discussed her request to post a notice and he spelled out the nonwork areas at her request. His testimony corroborates hers as to the first conversation. In regard to the second conversation, Starks stated that the head of the installment loan department called him complaining of litter conditions in the women's restroom on the 10th floor, stating that union papers were all over the floor and behind the mirror. Starks asked who did it and was told that Mrs. Costanzo had left them there. Copies of the leaflet were brought to him from the restroom and from the cafeteria. Starks sent for Mrs. Costanzo and told her of the litter situation in the 10th floor women's restroom and asked if she was responsible. She said that she had left one copy in there. He told her that the restroom was littered with copies and while he respected her rights, he was not going to allow a litter-like distribution. Starks testified that he did not discipline Mrs. Costanzo in any way and while aware of the previous four distributions, this was the only time there had been a complaint about litter. He stated that he did not consider leaflets on the tables in the 60 by 60 cafete- ria litter, but papers on the floor in a 9 by 7 bathroom used by other tenants would be considered a litter problem. Starks stated he did not tell Mrs. Costanzo that she could not distribute literature during nonwork time in nonwork areas of the building but acknowledged there has been no distribution since his second conversation with Mrs. Cos- tanzo. In regard to Avon Products or Tupperware, Starks said that nothing had ever been brought to his attention, but admitted that such sales and solicitation might be going on in the building. In regard to the bank's no-solicitation, no-distribution policy, Starks testified that the bank generally discouraged such but did not enforce its policy in all parts of the prem- ises and stated that employees were not informed of the policy or rule unless the supervisors felt it had been abused. Other than the "can do" "cannot do" rules quoted above, Respondent has no written rule concerning distribution or solicitation. Starks testified that no one had ever been disciplined for engaging in any solicitation or distribution for civic or char- itable programs and insofar as he knew, there had never been any discipline meted out for any solicitation or distri- bution. In regard to Piper Realty Company, Starks said that they discussed Piper's policies regarding the building in this last conversation with Mrs. Costanzo. Mr. Starks' testimony that he only sought to enjoin such distribution of literature as caused litter was obviously not made clear to Mrs. Costanzo. Her testimony indicates that all distribution was to be stopped as per Mr. Curnow's undenied statement and the remarks she attributed to Starks. Starks' testimony concerning the Piper Realty Com- pany policy as he divulged it to Mrs. Costanzo was not clear and was in the most general terms. From Mrs. Costanzo's reaction in removing literature from the restrooms and re- fraining from any distribution of literature thereafter, it appears clear that she got the message that Respondent's policy was to discourage distribution as well as solicitation. The fact that nothing was said to her concerning the first four distributions does not alter the fact that she got the general inhibitory messages from Curnow and Starks con- cerning her last distribution. Certainly no one can quarrel with Respondent's desire to prevent litter on its p,emises and in the restrooms, and there would be nothing wrong if Respondent had such a rule and enforced it 3 But Respondent's only rule or policy is one which discourages all solicitation and distribution and it is this rule or policy which is unlawful. Respondent states that this policy is known only to its supervisors and not to its employees and therefore cannot inhibit its employees' exercise of their rights. However, in the present case , Mrs. Costanzo was made aware of this Policy or rule both by Mr. Curnow and by Mr. Starks. Indeed the Piper Realty policy, as apparently explained to her, appears to be a written statement of Respondent's poli- cy which in this case was adopted by Respondent. At the very least Mr. Curnow's explanation would lead to this conclusion. Certainly Piper Realty's policy is meant for strangers and not for employees and Curnow and Starks' adaptation of it to fit union literature distribution by an employee is a distortion twisted to Respondent's advantage. Moreover, it would appear from Curnow's use of this policy, that he is following a different policy than that stated by Starks regarding enforcement only on a litter prevention basis. I conclude and find that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by its maintenance and enforcement of its overbroad general unwritten policy to discourage all solici- tatons and distributions of literature which I find inhibits the rights of its employees.' I do not find that Respondent discriminatorily enforced this policy insofar as the sales of Avon Products or Tupper- ware is concerned in that there is no clear and convincing testimony that such soliciting was brought to management's attention. If Respondent wishes to have and enforce a rule on solici- tation and distribution, then it should formulate and pub- lish a rule for its employees' information and guidance which will clearly state its desire as to when and where to allow certain solicitations and distributions which are not litter producing. III. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE Maintenance of the Bank's general policy discouraging solicitations or distribution of literature on its property, which I have found constitutes a violation of Section 8(a)(1), occurring in conncection with Respondent's business opera- tions as described in I, above, has a close, intimate, and 3 See Erie Marine Inc., 192 NLRB No. 119. ° The Board 's decision in Joseph Horne Co., 186 NLRB 793, appears to be closely aligned with this case . The Board said that an overbroad rule prohib- iting soliciting on company time and property violates Section 8 (a)(1) of the Act since it has an inhibiting effect on the employees despite the fact that the supervisors were instructed to permit lawful activity and even in the absence of evidence that the rule was enforced unlawfully. GENESEE MERCHANTS BANK & TRUST CO. substantial relationship to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several states and tends to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce. IV. THE REMEDY I recommend that Respondent rescind its general policy or rule discouraging solicitations ; or distribution of litera- ture on -its premises and that it be ordered to cease and desist from violating the Act by maintaining or enforcing such policy or rule. On the basis of the foregoing findings and the entire record in this matter I make the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Genesee Merchants Bank & Trust Company is an em- ployer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 2. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. By maintaining and enforcing a general policy or rule discouraging solicitations or distribution of literature on its premises, Respondent engaged in, and is engaging in, unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Sections 8(a)(l) and 2(6) and (7) of the Act. Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law and the entire record pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act I hereby issue the following recommended Order. ORDERS Respondent, Genesee Merchants Bank & Trust Compa- ny, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from maintaining or effectuating its general policy or rule of discouraging solicitations or distri- bution of literature on its premises. 2. Take the following affirmative action which is neces- sary to effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Rescind its general policy or rule which discourages solicitations or distribution of literature on its premises. (b) Post at its Flint, Michigan, premises copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 6 Copies of said notice on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 7, after being duly signed by Respondent's authorized repre- sentative, shall be posted by Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive 5 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the findings, conclusions , recommendations , and Recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Sec 102.48 of the Rules and Regulations , be adopted by the Board and become its findings, conclusions , and order, and all objections thereto shall be deemed waived for all purposes. 6 In the event that the Board's 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." 279 days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reason- able steps shall be taken by Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 7, in writing, within 20 days from the date of receipt of this decision, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith. APPENDIX NOTICE To EMPLOYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government Following a teal in which the Company and the Union and the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board participated and offered evidence, the National La- bor Relations Board found that we violated the Act and ordered us to post this notice and we intend to carry out the Order of the Board and abide by the following: WE WILL rescind our general policy of discouraging solicitations or distribution of literature on our prem- ises. WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain or coerce our employees in the exercise of their rights to self-organization, to form labor orga- nizations, to join or assist Local 393, Professional Em- ployees International Union, AFL-CIO, to bargain collectively with representatives of their own choosing, or to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any or all such activities. All our employees are free to become or remain union members. GENESEE MERCHANTS BANK & TRUST COMPANY (Employer) Dated By (Representative) (Title) This is an official notice and must not be defaced by anyone. This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. Any questions concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions may be direct- ed to the Board's Office, 500 Book Building, 1249 Washing- ton Boulevard, Detroit, Michigan 48226, Telephone 313-226-3200.