Opinion ID: 159879
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Charles Williams

Text: 35 Mr. Williams received a suspension, pending further investigation, upon Mr. Obermark's belief that on March 1, Mr. Williams had solicited two employees' union cards during work time. When Mr. Obermark confronted Mr. Williams, he also gave him an employee consultation form that Mr. Williams had been [c]onducting solicitation in violation of company regulation. Rec. vol. I at GC Ex. 1. Mr. Williams testified that he did not solicit employees during work time, but that he did speak to two employees as to whether they had made up their minds regarding union support, and that he mentioned the union to two other employees in the lavatory. 36 On March 15, two weeks into Mr. Williams' suspension, Webco determined that Mr. Williams had solicited at least one employee during work time. Webco adjusted the discipline to a three-day suspension, reinstated Mr. Williams and gave Mr. Williams backpay for the extraneous suspension period. 37 Applying the Burnup rule as above, we agree that the punishment imposed upon Mr. Williams for conduct that did not occur, violated section 8(a)(1) of the Act. 38