TWENTY-SIXTH ANNUAL REPORT - National Labor Relations Board

82 Twenty-sixth Annual Report of the National Labor Relations Board
session whether this iule was applicable to paid nonworking coffee
breaks, asserting that it should be applied only to actual "working
time" The employer's attorney disagreed, but as neither was certain
of the law on the subject, the matter was dropped The employer
never notified its employees that its rule was being or might be extended
to cover coffee breaks, nor did it ever attempt to enforce such
a i ule However, the union's attorney informed members of the union
that the employer's officers had interpreted its rules as covering coffee
breaks and warned them to be careful
To these facts, a majority again applied the "presumption of
validity" expressed in Star-Brite Inclustrze8, above, and held that the
Jule was not invalid merely because its adoption coincided with the
advent of the union, or because it failed to prohibit other types of
outside activity It also observed that, in accord with the Star-Brzte
decision, "to require an employer to establish that such rules are necessary
for production and discipline would render the presumption of
validity worthless" As foi the applicability of a no-solicitation rule
to coffee breaks and other paid nonworking time, the majority noted
that the Board and the courts have long recognized that the curtailment
of employees' rights to engage in concerted activities during nonworking
time is not justified by the fact that they are paid for such
time " It held, however, that the employer's possibly erroneous mtei -
pretation, that the phrase "company time" is "paid" rather than
"working" time, was not the proper basis for finding a violation in
the circumstances of this case, particularly as this aspect of the employees
no-talking rule was only incidentally discussed once at a
bargaining meeting, was never announced by the employer to the
employees, and na' attempt was ever made to enforce such a "paid"
time rule 57
A contrary decision was reached where an employer's rule prohibited
employees from engaging in organizational activity during
their "nonworking time" as distinguished from "company" or working"
time 58 And an employees promulgation of a rule prohibiting
employees of a hotel from wearing "badges of any kind," including
union insignia, "so that they may be seen by any customer or guest,"
allegedly because it tended to lower the dignity of the hotel, was likewise
held unlawful by a panel majority, where the employer threatened
employees having no contact with the public with discharge oi
other consequences for a violation of the rule 59 In that case the
"See I P Bales Co, 82 NLRB 187 (1949), and other cases cited in the instant case
57 Member Fanning, in agreement with the trial examiner, dissented on the ground that
the rule applied to nonworking time, I e, coffee breaks, as well as to working time, was
adopted for a discriminatory purpose and that the Star-Brite decision was therefore in
applicable
" Ford Motor Company (Sterling Plant, Chassis Parts Div), 181 NLRB No 174 See
also The Beadic Corp, Research Laboratories Div, 131 NLRB No 89
"Floridan Hotel of Tampa, 130 NLRB 1105, Member Kimball dissenting In part