Solo Cup Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 10, 1968

172 N.L.R.B. 1110 (N.L.R.B. 1968)

1110 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Solo Cup Company Calumet and Industrial District
Company and United Papermakers and Paper-
workers, AFL-CIO. Case 13-CA-7656
July 10, 1968
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS BROWN, JENKINS, AND ZAGORIA
On June 15, 1967, Trial Examiner Jerry B. Stone
issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceed-
ing, finding that the Respondents had engaged in
certain unfair labor practices and recommending
that they cease and desist therefrom and take cer-
tain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached
Trial Examiner's Decision. Thereafter, the Respon-
dents filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Deci-
sion and supporting briefs.
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
powers in connection with this case to a three-
member panel.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial
Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no
prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are
hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the
Trial Examiner's Decision, the Respondents' excep-
tions and briefs, and the entire record in this case,
and hereby adopts only those findings, conclusions,
and recommendations of the Trial Examiner con-
sistent with our opinion herein.
While we agree with the Trial Examiner's final
conclusion that the Respondents violated Section
8(a)(1) of the Act by their actions in refusing to
allow and/or ejecting the nonemployee union
representatives who were distributing union litera-
ture from their premises surrounding the plant
wherein the employees worked, we do so for the
reasons set forth hereafter.
In N.L.R.B. v. Babcock & Wilcox Company, 351
U.S. 105, the Supreme Court set forth the law ap-
plicable to the distribution of union literature by
nonemployee union organizers on employer's pro-
perty. Thus the Supreme Court stated:
... that an employer may validly post his pro-
perty against nonemployee distribution of
union literature if reasonable efforts by the
union through other available channels of com-
munication will enable it to reach the em-
ployees with its message and if the employer's
According to a 1963 survey by the city of Chicago, 12,540 can passed
the intersection of Dorchester Avenue and 95th Street between the hours
of 6 a in and I I p in On the same day, 420 cars went cast on 95th Street
between 2pin and 3pin
Cf Anmlgainated Fot l Fmplutees Union Local 590, et at v Logan Valle%
notice or order does not discriminate against
the union by allowing other distribution. [351
U.S. at 112.1
The Court further stated that although nonem-
ployee access to company property is governed by
different considerations than those applicable to
employees themselves:
The right of self-organization depends in some
measure on the ability of employees to learn
the advantages of self-organization from
others. Consequently, if the location of a plant
and the living quarters of the employees place
the employees beyond the reach of reasonable
union efforts to communicate with them, the
employer must allow the union to approach his
employees on his property. [351 U.S. at 113.]
We believe that the facts of the instant case fall
squarely within the exceptions to the rule set forth
above. In effect, the employees here are beyond the
reach of reasonable union efforts to communicate
with them and, as detailed hereafter, we conclude
the no-access rule (and its concomitant no-dis-
tribution rule) was discriminatorily enforced.
The record reveals that the Calumet Industrial
District wherein Solo's plant is located is entered by
approximately 99 percent of Solo's employees via
automobile through the intersection of Dorchester
Avenue and 95th Street. The former is a private
street owned by Calumet, hereinafter called CID,
and the latter is a very busy public highway carry-
ing a 35-mile-per-hour speed limit. Despite a stop
sign located on Dorchester Avenue at its intersec-
tion with 95th Street, it is still virtually impossible
to stand safely at this intersection and successfully
pass out literature of any kind because the cars ap-
proaching the intersection turn both right and left.
The union distributor would therefore run the risk
of being injured by cars either coming out of
Dorchester Avenue or proceeding along 95th
Street.'
Other than standing at the aforementioned inter-
section of Dorchester and 95th Street, the only
possible way for the union organizers, without en-
tering on CID property, to reach Solo's employees
with their message, which according to the
Supreme Court they were entitled to receive, would
be through the medium of home visits, radio, televi-
sion, or newspapers. In this connection the record
indicates that, unlike the small town situation exist-
ing in Babcock & Wilcox where the union organizers
met the employees on the streets, Solo's employees
live in various areas of Chicago, the surrounding
Plaza Gtc , et at , 389 U S 91 1, where the Supreme Court noted that the
denial of access to a privately owned shopping center to nonemployces
would imperil their safety by forcing them to distribute their literature on
heavily traveled roads abutting the shopping center
172 NLRB No. 110
SOLO CUP COMPANY
towns of Hobart and Whiting , Indiana, and Dalton,
Calumet City , and Lansing , Illinois, some 15 to 20
miles from the plant . Thus, it would be virtually im-
possible for the Union , without a list of addresses,
which Solo in a recent representation case has
refused to supply, to meet the Solo employees away
from the plant premises and convey its message.'
Additionally, assuming that cost was no object, in
view of the number of different newspapers and
radio and television stations operating in Chicago
and the surrounding areas, the Union would have a
problem in any event deciding on the appropriate
stations or newspapers and would not be able to
reach the employees effectively with its message
through such media. Accordingly , in view of the
substantial evidence that the Union was not able by
"reasonable attempts" to reach Solo 's employees
"through other available channels of communica-
tions" we are forced to conclude that the Respon-
dent's policy and /or rule of absolute exclusion of
union organizers from their premises is invalid, and
its enforcement of a no-distribution rule interfered
with , restrained , and coerced Solo's employees in
the exercise of their rights guaranteed by Section 7
of the Act.
Moreover , even assuming, arguendo, that the
Respondents ' rule and/or policy was not under the
circumstances in and of itself invalid , we further
find, in any event , that the absolute exclusion of
union organizers from the premises and its con-
comitant enforcement of a no-distribution rule
were discriminatory , since it was specifically
designed for , and enforced solely against, the
Union . Thus, we note that there is no evidence
whatsoever that any members of the public, other
than union organizers , were ever barred from the
industrial district by either of the Respondents. In
fact the parties stipulated that in addition to police
and mail deliveries , catering services , which would
appear to include ice cream and sandwich vendors,
were allowed within the industrial district. There
were no fences, gates, guards, or signs barring
trespassers or distribution of literature on the pro-
perty, all of which are general indications foreclos-
ing the access of private property to the public.
Thus, even though the area may not be classed as a
fully "public" area , in view of the unlimited acces-
sibility to the area established by past practice it
has become through custom and use a quasi -public
area.
In the recent Logan Valley Plaza case,' the
Supreme Court in an analogous situation found that
a privately owned shopping center could not ex-
clude nonemployees who sought to peacefully
picket and distribute literature from the premises.
In reaching such conclusion the Court pointed out
that the shopping center utilized its premises or
property as the "functional equivalent " of a "nor-
mal municipal business district " and the "public
[had] unrestricted access to the property " The
Court also noted that the economic development of
the United States in the last 20 years, particularly in
the area of suburban growth and the advent of
shopping centers, would , if a contrary conclusion
be reached, allow businesses located in suburban
shopping centers to immunize themselves from all
types of union campaigns and prevent the "free ex-
pression and communication that is the heart of the
First Amendment ." We find the industrial park in
the present case clearly analogous to the privately
owned suburban shopping center or the normal mu-
nicipal business district and similarly conclude that
Respondents cannot deny access to the premises to
union representatives, whether it be for picketing
or handbilling.
Lastly, we note, that on each occasion that the
union organizers were barred or ejected from the
industrial district , the reason assigned therefor was
their union affiliation , and no mention was made
about a rule generally banning those members of
the public who had no business within the industrial
district . In view of the foregoing considerations, it
appears clearly established that the only reason the
Respondents barred or ejected the union agents
from their premises was to prevent them from
delivering their message to, and organizing , Solo's
employees 4
Accordingly , we find that the Respondents' ex-
clusion of union organizers from the premises of
the industrial park and its enforcement of a no-dis-
tribution rule was violative of Section 8(a)(I) of
the Act, in view of the inaccessibility of employees
to reasonable union efforts to communicate with
them . Furthermore, we also find such conduct
violative of Section 8(a)( I) of the Act because as
we concluded previously , the rules limiting access
(and the distribution of union literature ) were dis-
criminatorily applied.
In Bab( ocd & Wiho% , 40 percent of the employees Iived in Parts , Texas,
a communit of 21,000 people In the instant case , the employees live in
Chicago and its surrounding areas , ss hich h as a population exceeding 4 nil-
lion people
' Supra, In I
' Compare Cranston Print Wore , 117 NLRB 1834, C,enci al D%aanac %,
137 NLRB 1725 , and BahcocA & Wi/coi , sup, a , sshere the plants sicre
fenced in and the companies had longstanding rules barring distribution of
literature ss hich xsere stnctIN enforced against a // nonemployces
1112 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order the Recom-
mended Order of the Trial Examiner and hereby
orders that Respondents, Solo Cup Company and
Calumet Industrial District Company, their officers,
agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action
set forth in the Trial Examiner's Recommended
Order, as herein modified.'
1. Delete subparagraph A, 1, (b), in its entirety,
and substitute therefor the following:
"(b) Interfering with the right of union or-
ganizers of United Papermakers and Paperworkers,
AFL-CIO, to distribute union literature or to other-
wise disseminate union information to its em-
ployees outside the inside portions of its plant
buildings inside the Calumet Industrial District."
2. Delete subparagraph A, 2, (a), in its entirety,
and substitute therefor the following:
"(a) Grant access rights to union organizers of
United Papermakers and Paperworkers Union,
AFL-CIO, to distribute union literature and to
otherwise disseminate union information on plant
premises but outside the inside portions of its plant
buildings in the Calumet Industrial District."
3. Delete subparagraphs A, 2, (b), and A, 2, (c),
in their entirety, and redesignate subparagraphs A,
2, (d), and A, 2, (e), as A, 2, (b), and A, 2, (c),
respectively.
4. Strike from redesignated subparagraph A, 2,
(c), the clause beginning with "If" and ending with
"Region 13," and capitalize "post."
5 Delete subparagraph B, 1, (b) in its entirety,
and substitute therefor the following:
"(b) Interfering with the right of union or-
ganizers of United Papermakers and Paperworkers,
AFL-CIO, to distribute union literature or to other-
wise disseminate union information to Solo Cup
Company employees outside the inside portions of
the Solo Cup Company plant building inside the
Calumet Industrial District."
6. Strike from subparagraph B, 2, (a), the phrase
beginning with "for" and ending with "case," at the
end of sentence.
7. Modify Appendix A, attached to the Trial Ex-
aminer's Decision, as follows:
(a) Delete the second indented paragraph in its
entirety, and substitute the following:
WE WILL NOT interfere with the right of
union organizers of United Papermakers and
Paperworkers, AFL-CIO, to distribute union
literature or to otherwise disseminate union in-
formation to our employees outside the inside
portions of our plant buildings inside the Calu-
met Industrial District.
(b) Delete from the fourth indented paragraph
the phrase beginning with "for" and ending with
"case," at the end of sentence.
(c) Delete the fifth indented paragraph in its en-
tirety.
8. Modify Appendix B, attached to the Trial Ex-
aminer 's Decision , as follows:
(a) Delete the second indented paragraph in its
entirety, and substitute the following:
WE WILL NOT interfere with the right of
union organizers of United Papermakers and
Paperworkers, AFL-CIO, to distribute union
literature or to otherwise disseminate union in-
formation to Solo Cup Company employees
outside the inside portions of Solo Cup Com-
pany plant buildings inside the Calumet Indus-
trial District.
b. Delete from the fourth indented paragraph
the phrase beginning with "for" and ending with
"Case."
' As sections of the Recommended Order and notice appear to %ary from
our usual remedial language. certain deletions sere deemed appropriate to
conform u ith the'. wlations found
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
JERRY B. STONE, Trial Examiner : Upon a charge
filed on November 17, 1966, by United Paper-
makers and Paperworkers , AFL-CIO (herein
sometimes called the Union or the Charging Party),
the General Counsel of the National Labor Rela-
tions Board by the Regional Director of Region 13
(Chicago , Illinois ) issued a complaint dated March
15, 1967, against Solo Cup Company ( herein some-
times called Respondent Solo or Solo ) and Calumet
Industrial District Company ( herein sometimes
called Respondent Calumet or Calumet ) alleging
violations of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. The
Respondents' duly filed answers admit many of the
facts but deny the commission of unfair labor prac-
tices.
Pursuant to appropriate notice a hearing was
held before Trial Examiner Jerry B. Stone at
Chicago, Illinois, on March 28, 1967 . All parties
were represented at the hearing , participated
therein , and were afforded the right to present
evidence , to examine and cross -examine witnesses,
to offer oral argument , and to file briefs . Briefs
have been filed by all parties and have been con-
sidered.
Upon the entire record in this case and from my
observation of the witness who testified , the follow-
ing findings of fact , conclusions of law , and recom-
mendations are made.
FINDINGS OF FACT'
SOLO CUP COMPANY 1113
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYERS INVOLVED
Solo Cup Company is and has been at all times
material to this proceeding a corporation duly or-
ganized under and existing by virtue of the laws of
the State of Delaware, and is and has been engaged
in the manufacture, sale, and distribution of paper
containers and related products.
At all times material herein, Solo Cup Company
has maintained a plant located at 1501 East 96th
Street, Chicago, Illinois.
During the calendar year ending December 3 1,
1966, which is a representative period, Solo Cup
Company, in the course and conduct of its business
operations, shipped paper containers and related
products valued in excess of $50,000 directly from
its Chicago plant to places in the United States
other than the State of Illinois.
Considering the foregoing, the record as a whole,
and as conceded by the Respondents, it is con-
cluded and found that Solo Cup Company is now
and has been at all times material to this proceed-
ing an employer engaged in commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
Calumet Industrial District Company is and has
been at all times material to this proceeding the
trade name and style under which copartners Ad-
dison Brown and Doris Brown transact and have
transacted business.
At all times material herein, Calumet Industrial
District Company is and has been engaged in the
management and leasing of real estate properties
for commerical purposes.
At all times material herein, Solo Cup Company
has leased from Calumet Industrial District Com-
pany land located near the northeast corner of the
intersection of Dorchester and 96th Streets in the
city of Chicago, Illinois, which has been used as a
parking area by employees of Solo Cup Company's
nearby Chicago plant.
At all times material herein, Calumet Industrial
District Company has owned subject to the lease
that it has made to Solo Cup Company the
northeast corner of the intersection of Dorchester
and 96th Streets in the city of Chicago, Illinois.
During the calendar year ending December 3 1,
1966, which is a representative period, Calumet In-
dustrial District Company received a gross annual
revenued and all the foregoing facts, and as con-
' The facts in this case are based upon the pleadings and admissions
therein, narrossing of issues by the parties at the hearing, stipulations, the
exhibits. and the credited testimony of Gibbons Although other issues
were raised by the parties and many other facts than those set forth herein
were adduced. I do not find it necessary to discuss such issues or such facts
as the resolution of the issues herein remoses the necessity for discussion of
the same
' It is noted that the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, 29
U S C Sec 151. et seq in Section 2(2) sets forth. inu'i alra, that "The
ceded by Solo Cup Company, it is concluded and
found that Calumet Industrial District Company is
now and has been at all times material to this
proceeding an employer engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the
Act.'
11. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
United Papermakers and Paperworkers,
AFL-CIO, is and has been at all times material
herein a labor organization within the meaning of
Section 2 ( 5) of the Act. It is so concluded and
found.
Ill. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Issues
There is no real dispute, and the evidence is
overwhelming that the Respondent by acts of con-
duct on September 1, 1966, November 16 and 30,
1966, and December 14 and 19, 1966, interfered
with the distribution of union literature to em-
ployees of Solo Cup Company by union organizers.
The essential issue is whether such interference
interfered with the rights of employees guaranteed
by Section 7 of the Act and that thereby the
Respondents have engaged in conduct violative of
Section 8(a)( 1) of the Act.
The Respondents' defense is that they had a right
to interfere with the distribution of union literature
on private property, that a rule prohibiting such dis-
tribution is presumptively valid, and that the
General Counsel has failed to overcome the validity
of such rule.
The cases principally relied on by the Respon-
dents are N.L.R.B. v. Babcock & Wilcox Company,
351 U.S. 105, and Walton Manufacturing Company,
126 NLRB 697.
In Walton Manufacturing Company, 126 NLRB
697, 698, the Board set forth as follows:
No-solicitation or no-distribution rules which
prohibit union solicitation or distribution of
union literature by nonemployee union or-
ganizers at any time on the employer's proper-
ty are presumptively valid, in the absence of a
showing that the union cannot reasonably
reach the employees with its message in any
other way, or a showing that the employer's
terms 'employer' includes any person acting as an agent of an employer.
directly or indirectly " It is also noted that the jurisdictional commerce
standards of the Board are met by the facts set forth The General Coun-
sel's motion to correct the transcript as regards the names of various com-
panies leasing properties from Calumet Industrial District Company is
granted The record reveals such companies to he engaged in interstate
commerce and to meet the Board's jurisdictional standards requirements
($50,000 outflow or inflow)
1114 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
notice discriminates against the union by al-
lowing other solicitation or distribution.-'
' V L R H v Ilu- Hub, oil & lVdun Cunipuni, %upia, where the
Supreme Court held that "an employer may salidly post his property
against non-employee distribution of union literature it reasonable ct-
forts by the union through other ao.ulable channels of conimuiuc.at on
will enable it to reach the employees with its message and If the em-
ployer s notice does not discriminate against the union by allowi ng
other distribution " In so holding the Court set forth the following ia-
tumule and rules "Here the Board holed to make a distinction
between rules of law applicable to employees and those applicable to
non-employees The distinction is one of substance No restriction
may he placed on the employees' right to discuss self-organization
among themselves, unless the employer can demonstrate that a restric-
tion is necessary to maintain production or discipline Republic 4a iu-
nun Coip s N L R B , 324 U S 793, 803 But no such obligation is
owed nonemployee organizers Their access to company property is
goserned by a different consideration The right of self-organization
depends in some measure on the ability of employees to learn the ad-
vantages of self-organization from others Consequently, if the loca-
tion of a plant and the h%ing quarters of the employees place the em-
ployees beyond the reach of reasonable union efforts to communicate
with them, the employer must allow the union to approach his em-
ployees on his property No such conditions are shown in these
records -
The essential issue, in my opinion, is whether or
not the rule that the Respondents applied con-
stitutes a defense for the Respondents within the
meaning of the Board's decision in Walton Manu-
facturing Company, 126 NLRB 697.
B. The Setting
Calumet Industrial District Company owns a
tract of land in the city of Chicago, Illinois, known
as the Calumet Industrial District. The said Com-
pany has the said district laid out with streets, street
signs, speed zone signs, fire hydrants, and water
lines for the area.; Part of the district has been
developed in such a manner and part of the district
has not as yet been developed. The said district lie,
south of 95th Street 4
There are three points of ingress to and egress
from the Calumet Industrial District. These points
are (I) at a point on the south edge of 95th Street
(of the Chicago, Illinois, street system) wherein a
person can walk into the said district. The facts
reveal that a minimal number of employees use this
point of ingress to and egress from public trans-
poration; (2) at a point on the south edge of 95th
Street (of the Chicago, Illinois, street system)
wherein a person can drive (or possibly walk) from
95th Street onto Dorchester Avenues one of the
streets laid out in the said district. Virtually all of
the employees of all companies operating in the
said district use this point of ingress or egress; (3)
at a point on the extreme south edge of the said dis-
trict where Dorchester Avenue's unpaved portion
' The facts of this case reseal the Calumet Industrial District to he in et-
feet a de fa( to municipal district
' A street which is part of the Chicago, Illinois street system
This section of Dorchester Asenue is paced
The evidence reveals that Solo Cup Company has between 280 and 290
employees who work in the Calumet Industrial District and that there are
intersects with 103d Street (which is described as a
good country highway). Virtually none of the em-
ployees of any of the employers in the said district
utilize this point of ingress or egress.
In the Calumet Industrial District it may be said
that within the developed section that Dorchester
Avenue is the main thoroughfare. Dorchester
Avenue, as indicated, runs south from 95th Street.
In the developed area certain streets are laid out
that run from Dorchester Avenue for a distance
that would appear to be the length of a city block.
There streets run parallel to 95th Street. Such
streets are as follows 96th Street, 97th Street, 97th
Place, and 98th Street. Between 95th Street and
96th Street, between 96th Street and 97th Street,
between 97th Street and 97th Place, and between
97th Street and 98th Street there exists ground
space upon which there are plants or buildings of
various employers.' There is also a plant or building
of an employer located approximately West of
Dorchester Avenue and of 96th Street. The Calu-
met Industrial District office is located west of
Dorchester Avenue and adjacent to 95th Street.
Solo Cup Company's production plant is located
on the northern half (actually slightly more than
one half) of the block area between 96th and 97th
Streets. Such site, 96th Street, and a small parking
lot approximately in the middle of and to the north
of 96th Street, constitute land area leased by Solo
Cup Company from the Calumet Industrial District
Company. A minimal number of Solo Cup Com-
pany employees arrive at and leave from work at a
point of ingress to and egress from located just
north of the referred-to parking lot and upon 95th
Street.? At this point there is a public transportation
stop. The vast majority of the employees of Solo
Cup Company who work at this location arrive at
work and leave from work at the point of ingress to
and egress from the Calumet Industrial District
located at the intersection of 95th Street and
Dorchester Avenue. They further normally proceed
to and leave from the Solo Cup Production plant by
driving on the portion of Dorchester Avenue
between 95th and 96th Streets. To the east of the
Solo Cup Production plant there is a continuation
of 96th Street which connects with the eastern end
of 97th Street. Some employees apparently at times
drive from 96th Street onto 97th Street and
therefrom enter Dorchester Avenue to 95th Street
when leaving from work.
Solo Cup Company also leases from the Calumet
Industrial District Company space on the block
between 97th Place and 98th Street. At this loca-
tion is a Solo Cup warehouse where a few em-
ployees work." In similar manner these employees
use the point of ingress to and egress from the
around 1,700 employees of other employers in said district
' According to the credited testimony this is less than I percent of Solo
Cup Company's 280 to 290 employees who work in the Calumet Industrial
District
' The record reveals the number of Solo Cup Company warehouse em-
ployees to be 24
SOLO CUP COMPANY 1115
Calumet Industrial District at the intersection of
9-5th Street and Dorchester Avenue.
The facts are clear that the vast majority of the
Solo Cup Company employees who work in the
Calumet Industrial District utilize automobiles as a
means of coming to and leaving work. The way of
ingress to and egress from Solo Cup Company's
production plant and warehouse in said district is of
necessity across lands owned and controlled by the
Calumet Industrial District Company.
C. The Union Solicitation and Interference
Therewith
1. In 1965'
In the winter of 1965 union organizers of the
United Papermakers and Paperworkers Union went
to handbill the employees at Solo Cup Company in
the Calumet Industrial District. What occurred is
revealed by the following excerpts from the
credited testimony of Gibbons:
Q. When did you handbill the first time at
C.I.D.?
A. It was in the fall of 1965-I mean the
winter, rather.
Q. What did you do?
A. Well, Bob Coomer, as I was saying,
represented our union and myself. Coomer
went on Dorchester Avenue to 96th Street and
I prceeded to go through the path on 95th
Street to the parking lot to get to the em-
ployee's entrance or the-and as I was going in
I noticed some people going on to Dorchester
and I saw there was a discussion ensued there
and subsequently all of a sudden there were
two people from Solo Cup approached me and
one identified himself as the personnel
manager and he told me that I would have to
leave the property, this is private property, and
I'd have to get off. And as we were discussing
it, another man approached from Dorchester
Avenue to 96th Street and he identified him-
self as a Mr. Reynolds who was employed by
C.I.D.
0. Is that what he said?
A. Yes. He said he was with C.I.D. and this
was private property and I'd have to leave.
And we had a lengthy discussion or argument,
and finally they said, "Look, either you're
going to leave or we are going to have you ar-
rested."
So we didn't want to get arrested, so we
went out back to 95th Street.
Q. Where were you standing exactly when
this conversation took place?
A. I was directly in front of the employee's
entrance except just across 96th Street in front
of the employee's entrance, a little bit north of
96th Street.
Q. What were you doing when these gent-
lemen approached you?
A. Well, I was passing out a leaflet and I was
just talking to an employee of the company
who was asking me some questions about
unions, and I was trying to pass handbills as
these people were going into the plant and that
was about it.
In 1965 the Union again attempted to pass out
leaflets at the Solo Cup Company in the Calumet
Industrial District. What occurred is revealed by
the following excerpts of the credited testimony of
Gibbons:
Q. Did you attempt to do any more hand-
billing of employees in C.I.D. in 1965?
A. Yes. About approximately a year later
we went out there to pass another leaflet.
Q. Who was this?
A. It was myself and I believe it was Bob
Coomer again, went out to pass another leaflet,
and this time I went by 95th on Dorchester and
as we got back on Dorchester, we were ap-
proached again by this fellow by the name of
Mr. Reynolds, who got real nasty and told us
that we'd have to get off the property, and we
got in an argument with him.
Q. What did he say? What did you say, if
you recall?
A. Well, I told him we felt we had a right to
be here under law, and he said, "No, You
don't. This is private property and you'd better
get off of it."
And I said, "We are not bothering anybody.
We are peacefully distributing our literature."
He said, "Well, I've got a lot of complaints
from companies within the district and I've got
a lot of complaints from Solo Cup, and they
want you out of here."
And we had a lengthy argument about that
and he also stated at that time that our leaflets
were getting on everybody else's plants in the
area. This is because the other employers were
complaining, and so, therefore, after that in-
cident we filed the charge with the NLRB.
Q. You were standing exactly where during
this conversation?
A. During this conversation I was approxi-
mately in the middle of-between 95th Street
and 96th Street on Dorchester Avenue in the
middle of the street.
2. In 1966 10
The Union next again attempted to handbill em-
"The facts herein relating to 1965 are background facts and con-
sequently there is no finding herein that such conduct "as violative of the
Act
The facts relating to events in 1966 are directly applicable to the
question of conduct violative of the Act
1116 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ployees of Solo Cup Company in the Calumet In-
dustrial District in September 1966. Gibbons, an
agent of the United Papermakers and Paperworkers-
Union, and John Scaglioni, a representative of the
United Rubber Workers, went to the Calumet In-
dustrial District on September 1, 1966, at approxi-
mately 1:45 p.m." What occurred is revealed by
the following excerpts of the credited testimony of
Gibbons:
A. Well, about 1:45, and I and John
Scaglioni were waiting for the employees to
come out They came out at 2:00 o'clock. We
were standing in the middle of 96th Street east
of Dorchester Avenue, and at that time we
were just getting ready to distribute our leaflet
and the man approached us who had come out
of the C.I.D. office and introduced himself as a
fellow by the name of Addison Brown and said
he was president of the Calumet Industrial Dis-
trict Company, and he said, "What are you fel-
lows doing out here." "We are passing hand-
bills." And he said, "Well, this is all private
property" and he says, "You're going to have
to leave." He said, "We don't allow any picket-
ing in here."
Of course we told him we weren't picketing,
we were handbilling. He said, "Well, we've got
an agreement, all the companies within this
district want a no-solicitation rule enforced. He
called it a no-picketing rule enforced. "And we
cannot allow any unions to come in here and
pass out union literature."
So at that time we questioned whether or not
this was his property because the signs looked
just like they-
A. Well, we told him-I said, "This doesn't
look like your property." I said, "Look at the
street sign over there." And he says, "Don't
leave that street fool you. I paid for that." I
said, "What about the fire hydrant?" He said,
"Well, this is all private property." I said, "I
notice the city police coming and going
patrolling the area." He said, "This is all
private property I pay high taxes, and the com-
panies in the area do not want unions in here."
And he said, "We've got a complaint from
Solo Cup and we want you people out of here.
Either leave or I'm going to have you ar-
rested."
So throughout the conversation which was
between Scaglioni and myself and the ones
who handbill, because the employees would
start coming out at that time, one would hand-
bill and one would be involved in a conversa-
tion and sometimes both of us
And then we said, "Look, we live in a
democracy. If what you say is true, why don't
you have all the companies in the district take
a vote on whether or not we can be allowed to
come in and take over a majority of votes to
leave us in, then welcome [sic] in and pass out
leaflets.
He said, "I might do that and let you know."
We argued some more and said, "If we have to
leave, then why don't you get us a mailing list
from the company or leave us get in the plant
and talk to the people. We won't have to stand
out here on the corner."
He just laughed at us. So he said-well, we
talked to him about this vote business some
more, and he said, I'll let you know in a couple
of weeks about the vote.
And that's about all that happened that time.
Q. How long did this conversation last?
A. Well, it lasted approximately, oh, I'd say
close to 20 minutes from about ten or five to
two to a quarter after.
On November 16, 1966, Gibbons and Scaglioni
again attempted to handbill employees of Solo Cup
Company in the Calumet Industrial District. What
occurred is revealed by the following excerpts of
Gibbons' credited testimony:12
A. Well, we got there approximately 1:45,
because we were waiting to distribute our
leaflets. A fellow drove out from 96th Street in
a brown car and said to us, "Fellows, you know
you are on private property."
Q. Where were you standing at this time?
A. We were standing by the intersection by
Dorchester and 96th Street a little east on
Dorchester
Q. What were you doing?
A. Passing handbills.
Q. Did this individual say what his name
was?
A. Yes He said his name was Lowery and
he was with the Solo Cup Company.
" The parties stipulated to the effect that the Union's h.ndbdhng and
leafleting was the distribution of union literature with union ,tuthorv.non
cards attached The credited testimony of Gibbons was to the etlect that
the Solo Cup Company employees involved lived at various places in
Chicago and surrounding towns of Hobart and Whiting. Indiana. and Dal-
ton, Calumet City, and Lansing, Illinois Gibbons' credited testimony also
revealed that he had no mailing list of such employees and that during the
representation proceeding (Solo Cup Company. Case I3-RC-I 1080) that
the Company had refused to furnish such a mailing list (names and ad-
dresses of employees in the appropriate bargaining unit)
'' The pleadings establish that Let) J Hulseman was the president of Solo
Cup Company, John P Noon was the director of personnel of Solo Cup
Company, John Lowery was warehouse manager of Solo Cup Company,
and Hulseman , Noon. and Lowery were supers isors of Solo Cup Cotnp.in
within the meaning of the Act The pleadings also establish that Addison
Brown was the president of the Calumet Industrial District Company, and
that James C Black was the assistant to the president of Calumet Industrial
District Company The parties also stipulated that Brov. n and Black in their
conduct on the premises leased to Solo Cup Company acted .is agents of
Solt) Cup company
SOLO CUP COMPANY 1117
Q. Continue.
A. And he asked us what we were doing
there, and we told him and he said, "You know
this is private property" and he said, "What
are you going to do about it?" And we said,
"We are going to finish passing our leaflets,"
and from there he drove over to the C.I.D.'s
office and was there approximately five
minutes and drove back out and made a state-
ment like, "So long, Charley," or, "So long,
fellows," and drove back down 96th Street into
Solo Cup. And approximately a few minutes
after the three men walked out of the C.I.D.
office and two of them introduced themselves
as police officers and one fellow introduced
himself as Mr. Black, who is assistant to the
president of Calumet Industrial District Com-
pany, and he said that I have-the police of-
ficer introduced him, rather, as a former lieute-
nant of the Chicago police department, and he
has a statement to make to you, and Mr. Black
proceeded to say that we are on private pro-
perty, we are not allowed there and that we
better leave.
And then we asked Mr. Black what about
the vote that Mr. Brown was supposed to have
taken, and apparently Mr. Black said, "I don't
know anything about it," and we asked where
was Mr. Brown and Mr. Black said, "Well, he's
in Florida."
So then we got into a discussion at that time
again about-we had gotten into an argument
whether or not this was their property and that
we were going to stand there, and we asked
Mr. Black again, "Well, if you are not going to
allow us to stand here, then why don't you get
us a chance to talk to the people," and we
didn't get any response and then Mr Black
said, "Well, I'm just warning you that this is
private property," and we stayed there. And
this was just before 2:00 o'clock, the people
weren't coming out yet,' and Mr. Black then
said, "Well, move over this way a little more,"
saying move east on 96th Street off of
Dorchester, which we did do, and then we
talked some more and-well, he did say, "Go
out and stand on 95th Street," and this is when
I told Mr. Black-I pointed to the traffic on
95th Street and I said, "Well, you've got to be
kidding. We'll get killed out there or hurt
somebody else," because I pointed out to him
that once the trucks turn in, these big trailer
trucks were coming around the corner, and
they were cutting them pretty short and the
traffic was blocked up by the stop sign and
there wasn't any room to stand. And Mr. Black
said, "I'm telling you this is private property."
And that's about all I can remember.
On November 30, 1966, Gibbons and a man
named Maskel (president of one of the Union's lo-
cals) next went to Calumet Industrial District to at-
tempt to handbill the employees of Solo Cup Com-
pany at 1:45 p.m. What occurred is revealed by the
following excerpt of the credited testimony:
A. Then the two detectives came out of the
C.I.D. office and they said, "Black's going to
come out, he's going to read you a statement
that you are trespassing," and Black never did
show up that afternoon. And the detectives
said at that time, "He's going to read you this
statement and if you don't leave, he's going to
call the district police to come in and arrest
you. He's not going to arrest you unless we
have a warrant, and he's going to try to get the
district police to arrest you."
That evening Gibbons and Maskel returned to at-
tempt to handbill the employees at 9 p.m. What oc-
curred is revealed by the following excerpts of the
credited testimony of Gibbons:
A. Well, we got out there approximately
9:00 o'clock; and as I was beginning to dis-
tribute leaflets Mr. Black drove in and we were
in a first-name basis. I call him Jim and he
called me Bill. And he said, "Can I talk to you
a while, Bill," and I said, "Yes."
He invited me over to the C.I.D. office and
he said, "Look," at that time I was standing on
95th and Dorchester because at night the traf-
fic was a little lighter, and he said, "Look, Bill,
I've got a statement here I'm supposed to read
to you and if you don't leave, I'm supposed to
have you arrested tonight." And I asked if I
could see the statement and he said yes and I
looked at it.
It had on it, "You are trespassing on private
property, you are hampering traffic, and that
since this matter is before the NLRB that you
shouldn't trespass."
So anyway, I told him, I said, "Well, Mr.
Black"-Jim, rather-I said, "Well, Jim, I'm
out on 95th Street now." He said, "Yes, I
know you're out there." He said, "If you stay
there, I won't have to have you arrested."
I said, "Well, I was when you came in. I'm
going to be there when you leave. I did it on
my own accord. You don't have to worry
about that tonight."
I said, "If you can guarantee me that there
won't be any trouble"-I said, "Next week
during the afternoon I'm going to have to go
on 96th Street again because it's just impossi-
ble to effectively distribute our literature on
95th and Dorchester with all the traffic."
So he said, "Well, we will see what happens
next week." And that was the end of the con-
versation that day.
On December 14, 1966, Gibbons and Maskel
1 1 1 S DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
again attempted to leaflet the employees of Solo
Cup Company in the Calumet Industrial District.
Gibbons and Maskel arrived at the premises of Solo
Cup Company around 1.45 p.m. What occurred on
that date is revealed by the following excerpts of
Gibbons' credited testimony:
A. Well, we got out there and we went
down Dorchester onto 96th Street again in the
middle of Dorchester Avenue and we were
waiting to pass our leaflet , and all of a sudden
Mr. Black , the two detectives from the police
department were there again.
I called them and this time they had a fellow
by the name-Black approached me and he in-
troduced this fellow he had with him as Mr.
William Brown , and Mr . Brown says, "I'm a
member of the Brown family," and I don't
know what that meant.
He said he was a member of the Brown fami-
ly. All of a sudden he said, "You'll have to
leave . This is private property."
We got into another discussion on it, and we
had the same argument again . I told him I felt
we had a right to be here under the law and we
are not bothering anybody. We are just trying
to get our leaflets out , and he said , "Well, go
over there and stand on 95th Street," and
again I pointed- said , Well, as we were leav-
ing, the discussion was over, we were about
ready to leave , he told Mr. Black "Get a war-
rant issued for his arrest."
Q. Where were you standing exactly when
you had this conversation?
A. It was in the middle of 96th Street a few
feet east of Dorchester Avenue.
0. Could you describe the material you
were attempting to give to the employees?
A. Yes. It was basically-basically they were
handbills made up for our benefit, and he had
all material informing the people of unionism
and what benefits they could gain through
unionism through organizing.
On December 19, 1966, James C. Black,
assistant to president of Calumet Industrial District
Company, admittedly acting as an agent of Solo
Cup Company filed a complaint in the Municipal
Court of Chicago against Gibbons , on a charge of
criminal trespass to lands of Calumet Industrial Dis-
trict Company. On January 3, 1967, Gibbons sur-
rendered himself to the Chicago police and was ar-
rested pursuant to such complaint . Gibbons was fin-
gerprinted , had his picture taken for police files,
and was locked up for a couple of hours. He
thereafter was allowed to post bond.
Considering all of the foregoing , I am convinced
that the facts reveal that the Respondents were at-
tempting to enforce a rule of no distribution of
union literature by union organizers at any place in
the Calumet Industrial District . The parties stipu-
lated that Black and Brown were acting as agents
for Solo Cup Company in their conduct on 96th
Street (property leased by Solo Cup Company).
The effect of what Black and Brown told the union
organizers was that Solo Cup Company and the
other companies had agreed that there would be no
distribution ( by union organizers ) of union litera-
ture anywhere in the Calumet Industrial District
and that they were enforcing such rule.
Thus this case does not simply present Solo Cup
Company's attempt to enforce a no-distribution
rule on its own premises but reveals that Solo Cup
Company was attempting to enforce or have en-
forced a no-distribution rule at any point inside the
Calumet Industrial District.
Although Solo Cup Company could have had a
valid rule prohibiting distribution of union litera-
ture on its own property, under the circumstances
and consistent with the rationale of N.L.R.B. v. The
Babcock & Wilcox Company, 351 U.S. 105, and
Walton Manufacturing Company, 126 NLRB 697,
such cases do not support a conclusion that Solo
Cup Company can interfere with the rights of its
employees by interfering with union organizers' at-
tempts to disseminate union literature otherwise. I
find it fundamentally clear that Solo Cup Company
has no right to cause or attempt to cause Calumet
Industrial District Company or any other company
(such as radio stations ) to interfere with or impede
the Union in its efforts to organize employees and
to thereby interfere with the employees' rights to
engage in or refrain from union or concerted activi-
ties.
As stated, this case does not present a situation
wherein Solo Cup Company had a valid rule
prohibiting distribution of union literature by union
organizers on its properties . The facts are clear that
Black and Brown , as agents of Solo Cup Company,
were attempting to enforce a rule of no distribution
of union literature at any place in the Calumet In-
dustrial District . It is further clear that the reason
Calumet Industrial District Company ( by Black and
Brown ) was attempting to enforce such a rule was
because of Solo Cup Company's (and other compa-
nies in the district ) attempt to interfere with the
Union's attempt to distribute union literature
anywhere in the district.
The fundamental right involved herein is the
right of employees to engage in or refrain from en-
gaging in union or concerted activities . The inter-
ference with the union organizers ' distribution of
union literature naturally interferes with such rights
of the employees. The facts in this case go beyond a
balancing of Respondents ' property rights with the
union organizers' rights to organize . Solo Cup Com-
pany 's interference has gone beyond its own pro-
perty rights interests , and Calumet Industrial Dis-
trict Company's involvement herein is as an agent
of Solo Cup Company and is because of Solo Cup
Company's illegal interference with employees'
rights.
SOLO CUP COMPANY 1119
Considering all of the foregoing , I conclude and
find that the Respondents , as alleged , have inter-
fered with employees ' rights to engage in union or
concerted activities, or to refrain therefrom. Such
conduct is violative of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. I
so conclude and find.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondents have engaged
in certain unfair labor practices , it will be recom-
mended that they cease and desist therefrom and
take certain affirmative action designed to effectu-
ate the policies of the Act.
Since the Respondents have interfered with the
Union 's attempt to disseminate literature and infor-
mation to employees and thereby have interfered
with the employees ' rights to engage in or to refrain
from engaging in union or concerted activities, I
find it necessary in order to fully dissipate the effect
of such unfair labor practices that the Respondents
shall be required to allow the union organizers ac-
cess to the Solo Cup Company employees at the
plant premises , and that further Solo Cup Company
shall be required to furnish an up -to-date list of its
employees within the appropriate bargaining unit to
the Union , and with correct names and addresses of
said employees , and that weekly thereafter Solo
Cup Company shall be required to furnish to the
Union necessary corrections to said list.
The affirmative requirements of allowing access
to the premises and of furnishing lists of names and
addresses of employees to the Union shall continue
in effect until the question concerning representa-
tion in Solo Cup Company, Case 13-RC-11080,
has been determined by procedures in that case or
otherwise. t '
The Respondents shall also be required to cease
and desist from interfering with the Union 's right to
distribute union literature as granted under the
necessary affirmative order , and shall also be
required to cease interfering with the Union's or-
ganzational rights unless pursuant to a lawful no-
distribution rule within the meaning of Walton
Manufacturing Company, 126 NLRB 697, and
N.L R.B. v. Babcock & Wilcox Company, 351 U.S.
105.
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact, and
upon the entire record in the case, I make the fol-
lowing
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Solo Cup Company is an employer within the
meaning of Section 2(2) of the Act, and is engaged
in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6)
and (7) of the Act.
2 Calumet Industrial District Company is an
employer within the meaning of Section 2(2) of the
' ' The facts in the instant case reveal that there is a pending representa-
tion case concerning the employees to whom the Union was attempting to
distribute literature The representation case is Solt) Cup Compton, Case
Act, and is engaged in commerce within the mean-
ing of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
3. United Papermakers and Paperworkers,
AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the mean-
ing of Section 2(5) of the Act.
4. By interfering with the union organizers'
rights to distribute union literature to Solo Cup
Company's employees and thereby interfering with
such employees' rights to engage in or not to en-
gage in union or concerted activities, the Respon-
dents have interfered with employees' exercise of
rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act, and have
thereby engaged in and are engaging in unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)( i) of
the Act.
5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair
labor practices affecting commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact
and conclusions of law and upon the entire record
in this case, it is recommended
A. Respondent Solo Cup Company, its officers,
agents, successors , and assigns , shall.
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Interfering with the right of union organizers
to distribute union literature or to otherwise dis-
seminate union information to its employees by en-
forcement of an unlawful rule against such distribu-
tion of union literature or dissemination of union
information.
(b) Until the question concerning representation
of its employees in Solo Cup Company, Case
13-RC-1 1080, is determined by procedures in that
case or otherwise , in interfering with the right of
union organizers of United Papermakers and Paper-
workers, AFL-CIO, to distribute union literature or
to otherwise disseminate union information to its
employees outside of the inside portions of its plant
buildings inside the Calumet Industrial District.
(c) In any like or related manner interfering
with, restraining , or coercing its employees in the
exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the
Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which it
is found will effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Grant access rights to the union organizers
of the United Papermakers and Paperworkers
Union, AFL-CIO, to distribute union literature and
to otherwise disseminate union information on
plant premises but outside of the inside portions of
its plant buildings in the Calumet Industrial District
for the period of time set forth in the remedy sec-
tion of this Decision.
(b) Furnish to the Union up -to-date lists con-
taining the names and addresses of all of its em-
ployees in the appropriate bargaining unit
13-RC-11080 Such case has a determination therein of the appropriate
bargaining unit
1120 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
described in the Decision and Direction of Election
in Solo Cup Company, Case 13-RC-11080, and
thereafter, weekly, furnish such information as
needed to correct such lists, for the period of time
set forth in the remedy section of this Decision.
(c) Furnish to the Regional Director for Region
13 for the use of Calumet Industrial District Com-
pany, in compliance with the remedial aspects of
this case by Calumet Industrial District, a list of
names and addresses of all of Solo Cup Company's
employees (who do not hold supervisory or
managerial positions within the meaning of the
Act) who have worked at any time for Solo Cup
Company in the Calumet Industrial District from
September 1, 1966, to the date of said request by
said Regional Director.
(d) Post at its location in the Calumet Industrial
District in Chicago, Illinois, and at such other loca-
tions wherein it has employees working who are a
part of the appropriate bargaining unit as deter-
mined in Solo Cup Company, Case 13-RC-11080,
copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix
A."" Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the
Regional Director for Region 13, after being signed
by an authorized representative of the Respondent,
shall be posted by the Respondent immediately
upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for
60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous
places, including all places where notices to em-
ployees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps
shall be taken by the Respondent to insure that said
notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any
other material.
(e) If requested to do so by the Regional
Director for Region 13, post at its location in the
Calumet Industrial District in Chicago, Illinois, and
at such other locations wherein it has employees
working who are a part of the appropriate bargain-
ing unit as determined in Solo Cup Company, Case
13-RC-1 1080 , signed copies of the attached notice
marked "Appendix B."15 Copies of said notice to
be furnished by the Regional Director for Region
13, shall be posted by the Respondent immediately
upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for
60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous
places, including all places where notices to em-
ployees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps
shall be taken by the Respondent to insure that said
notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any
other material.
(f) Notify the Regional Director for Region 13,
in writing, within 20 days from this Decision, what
steps the Respondent has taken to comply
herewith.'
B. Respondent Calumet Industrial District Com-
pany, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns,
shall:
" In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board,
the words "a Decision and Order" shall he substituted for the words "the
Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner" in the notice In the further
event that the Board's Order is enforced by a decree of a United States
Court of Appeals, the words "a Decree of the United States Court of Ap-
peals Enforcing an Order" shall he substituted for the words "a Decision
and Order -
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Interfering with the right of union organizers
to distribute union literature or to otherwise dis-
seminate union information to Solo Cup Company
employees by enforcement of an unlawful rule
against such distribution of union literature or dis-
semination of union information.
(b) Until the question concerning representation
of Solo Cup Company employees in Solo Cup Com-
pany, Case 13-RC-11080, is determined by
procedures in that case or otherwise, in interfering
with the right of union organizers of United Paper-
makers and Paperworkers, AFL-CIO, to distribute
union literature or to otherwise disseminate union
information to Solo Cup Company employees out-
side of the inside portions of Solo Cup Company
plant building inside the Calumet Industrial Dis-
trict.
(c) In any like or related manner interfering with,
restraining , or coercing Solo Cup Company em-
ployees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Sec-
tion 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which it
is found will effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Grant access rights to the union organizers of
the United Papermakers and Paperworkers Union,
AFL-CIO, to distribute union literature and to
otherwise disseminate union information on Solo
Cup Company plant premises but outside of the in-
side portions of Solo Cup Company's plant
buildings in the Calumet Industrial District, for the
period of time set forth in the remedy section of the
Decision in this case.
(b) Sign copies of attached Appendix B and
furnish the same to the Regional Director for Re-
gion 13, if requested, for posting by Solo Cup Com-
pany on its premises.
(c) Sign copies of the attached Appendix B and
mail signed copies of said notice to the named per-
sons on a list of names and addresses of Solo Cup
Company employees who have worked during the
material time herein. Such lists of names and ad-
dresses to be furnished to Calumet Industrial Dis-
trict Company by the Regional Director for Region
13, after the latter has obtained the same from Solo
Cup Company.
(d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 13,
in writing , within 20 days from the date of this
Decision, what steps the Respondent has taken to
comply herewith.''
APPENDIX A
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial
Examiner of the National Labor Relations Board
Sup,a fn 14
In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board,
this provision Shall he modified to read "Notil said Regional Director, in
writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps Respondent
has taken to comply herewith
" Sup,a, fn 16
SOLO CUP COMPANY
and in order to effectuate the policies of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Act, as amended, we hereby
notify our employees that:
WE WILL NOT interfere with the right of
union organizers to distribute union literature
or to otherwise disseminate union information
to our employees by enforcement of an unlaw-
ful rule against such distribution of union
literature or dissemination of union informa-
tion.
Until the question concerning representation
of our employees in Solo Cup Company, Case
13-RC-1 1080, is determined by procedures in
that case or otherwise, WE WILL NOT interfere
with the rights of union organizers of United
Papermakers and Paperworkers, AFL-CIO, to
distribute union literature or to otherwise dis-
seminate union information to our employees
outside of the inside portions of our plant
buildings inside the Calumet Industrial District.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner
interfere with, restrain, or coerce our em-
ployees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in
Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL grant access rights to the union or-
ganizers of the United Papermakers and Paper-
workers Union, AFL-CIO, to distribute union
literature and to otherwise disseminate union
information on plant premises but outside of
the inside portions of our plant buildings in the
Calumet Industrial District for the period of
time set forth in the remedy section of the
Decision in this case.
WE WILL furnish to the United Papermakers
and Paperworkers Union, AFL-CIO, up-to-
date lists containing the names and addresses
of all of our employees in the appropriate bar-
gaining unit described in the Decision and
Direction of Election Solo Cup Company, Case
13-RC-1 1080, and thereafter, weekly, furnish
such information as needed to correct such
lists, for the period of time set forth in the
remedy section of the Decision of this case.
SOLO CUP COMPANY
(Employer)
Dated By
(Representative ) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecu-
tive days from the date of posting and must not be
altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
If employees have any question concerning this
notice or compliance with its provisions, they may
communicate directly with the Board's Regional
Office, 881 U.S. Courthouse and Federal Office
Building, 219 South Dearborn Street, Chicago, Il-
linois 60604, Telephone 828-7570.
APPENDIX B
1121
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
of Solo Cup Company
Pursuant to the Recommened Order of a Trial
Examiner of the National Labor Relations Board
and in order to effectuate the policies of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Act, as amended, we hereby
notify the employees of Solo Cup Company that:
WE WILL NOT interfere with the rights of
union organizers to distribute union literature
or to otherwise disseminate union information
to Solo Cup Company employees by enforce-
ment of an unlawful rule against such distribu-
tion of union literature or dissemination of
union information.
Until the question concerning representation
of Solo Cup Company employees in Solo Cup
Company, Case 13-RC-11080, is determined
by procedures in that case or otherwise, WE
WILL NOT interfere with the right, of union
organizers of United Papermakers and Paper-
workers, AFL-CIO, to distribute union litera-
ture or to otherwise disseminate union infor-
mation to Solo Cup Company employees out-
side of the inside portions of Solo Cup Com-
pany plant buildings inside the Calumet Indus-
trial District.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner
interfere with, restrain, or coerce Solo Cup
Company employees in the exercise of rights
guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL grant access rights to the union or-
ganizers of the United Papermakers and Paper-
workers Union, AFL-CIO, to distribute union
literature and to otherwise disseminate union
information on Solo Cup Company plant
premises but outside of the inside portions of
Solo Cup Company's plant buildings in the
Calumet Industrial District, for the period of
time set forth in the remedy section of the
Decision in this case.
CALUMET INDUSTRIAL
DISTRICT COMPANY
(Employer)
Dated By
(Representative ) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecu-
tive days from the date of posting and must not be
altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
If employees have any question concerning this
notice or compliance with its provisions, they may
communicate directly with the Board's Regional
Office, 881 U.S. Courthouse and Federal Office
Building, 219 South Dearborn Street, Chicago, Il-
linois 60604, Telephone 828-7570.
354-126 O-LT - 73 - pt. I - 72