TWENTY-SIXTH ANNUAL REPORT - National Labor Relations Board

80 Twenty-sixth Annual Report of the National Labor Relations Board
tivities, and desires, 43 polling employees concernmg their union sympathies
, " interrogation of a known union adherent as to whether he
had signed a union card; " and counsel's extensive interrogation
of employees under oath going far beyond an asserted purpose of
establishing supervisory taint in the showing of interest submitted
by a union in support of a representation petition"
The Boaad did not agree with a trial exammei's view that interrogation
is "presumptively unlawful," insofar as the trial examiner implied
that once the fact of interrogation was established the employei
had the burden to estabhsh that it was not unlawful 47
b Prohibitions Against Union Activities
Company iules and p] ohibitions against union activities, such as
union solicitation and discussion, and the wearing of union insignia,
were again considered by the Board in several cases
With respect to the promulgation of plant rules against union solicitation,
the Board continued to follow the principles set forth in Walton
Mfg Co 48 and Star-Brae In4u8tne8, Inc ," durmg the pievious
fiscal year 5° Thus, an employer's broad rule forbidding solicitation
on company property "to join or not to join any organization"—
without reference to working or nonwoikmg time--was held "presumptively
an unreasonable impediment to self-organization" in one
case, and therefore unlawful, in the absence of evidence that special
circumstances made the rule necessary to maintain production or
discipline 31
In this case, the Board rejected the employer's contention that
the rule was nesessary to prevent employees on wink breaks from
soliciting others still at work and thereby interfei mg with pmduction
The Board noted that the prohibitory rule was not limited
to the solicitation of employees still at work, but was equally applicable
to situations where both the solicited and the solicitor were on
work breaks Likewise, the fact that a strike 7 or 8 years ago was
accompanied by violence and friction among the employees was not
Ainsworth Mfg Co, above, Yoseph Bag 00, 128 NLRB 211, 21/-218
"Stewart Hog Ring Co, Inc 131 NLRB go 49
" Southeastern Galtantaing Corp. 130 NLRB 123
4s Lindsay Newspapera, 130 NLRB 680 But the Board did not adopt the trial exanilines
opinion that the concept underlying the kind of inquiry held privileged in Joy
Silk Mills, 85 NLRB 1263, 1288 (1949), enforced 185 1' 2d 732 (C A DC, 1950),
certiorari denied, 341 II S 914, is inapplicable to representation proceedings Douther,
In view of its conclubion as to the employei's purpose in conducting the inquiry it found
it unnecessary to decide the extent and nature of privileged inquiry in the representation
case situation as presented here
Awieworth Mfg Co, above, footnote 3
da 126 NLRi3 697 (1960), enforced 289 P 2d 177 (CA 5), Mar V, 1961
55 127 NLRB 1008 (1960)
55 Bee Twenty-fifth Annual Report (1980), pp 57-59
51 Texas Aluminum Co, 131 NLRB No 69