American Arbitration Assn., Inc.,

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 19, 1977

233 N.L.R.B. 71 (N.L.R.B. 1977)

AMERICAN ARBITRATION ASSOCIATION, INC.
American Arbitration Association, Inc. and Billie J.
Holbrook. Case 7-CA- 12909
October 19, 1977
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS JENKINS, PENELLO, AND MURPHY
On May 31, 1977, Administrative Law Judge
Morton D. Friedman issued the attached Decision in
this proceeding. Thereafter, the General Counsel
filed exceptions and a supporting brief, and the
Respondent filed cross-exceptions and a brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the
attached Decision in light of the exceptions and
briefs and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings,
and conclusions' of the Administrative Law Judge
and to adopt his recommended Order.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order the recommend-
ed Order of the Administrative Law Judge and
hereby orders that the complaint be, and it hereby is,
dismissed in its entirety.
Aside from the issue as to whether the use of Holbrook's list of lawyers
and arbitrators with whom she was familiar through her position as a
tribunal administrator involved a breach of confidentiality, we find in
agreement with the Administrative Law Judge that the tone and content of
Holbrook's letter and the attached questionnaire constituted disloyalty to
and disparagement of Respondent's judgment and capacity to effectively
perform its work. Accordingly, we agree that Holbrook's conduct was not
protected by the Act, and her discharge was warranted and lawful. Cf.
Jefferson Standard Broadcasting Company, 94 N LRB 1507 (195 1).
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
MORTON D. FRIEDMAN, Administrative Law Judge: This
case was heard at Detroit, Michigan, on the complaint of
the General Counsel issued on August 26, 1976, which
complaint was based upon a charge filed on April 9, 1976,
by Billie J. Holbrook, an individual. The complaint alleges,
in substance, that American Arbitration Association, Inc.,
herein called the Respondent or the Association, discrimi-
natorily discharged Billie J. Holbrook because the latter
engaged in protected concerted activity, such discharge
being in violation of Section 8 (aX1) of the Act. The
Respondent, in its duly filed answer, denies the commis-
sion of any unfair labor practices.
After the close of the hearing herein, the Respondent
filed a brief. Both parties were given an opportunity to
make oral argument.
233 NLRB No. 12
Upon the entire record herein, and upon the arguments
and contentions made by the parties in their oral
arguments and by the Respondent in its brief, and upon
my observation of the witnesses, I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
The Respondent, a public service corporation organized
under the laws of the State of New York, maintains its
office and principal place of business in the State of New
York and maintains various offices throughout the United
States including the one involved herein located in Detroit,
Michigan, herein referred to as the Detroit office. At its
various offices, the Respondent is engaged, primarily, in
the administration of voluntary arbitration tribunals and
other factfinding and dispute-resolving procedures. During
the year ending December 31, 1975, a representative
period, Respondent performed services of a value in excess
of $500,000, of which services valued in excess of $50,000
were received from numerous organizations which, on an
annual basis, either purchase or sell goods or services of a
value in excess of $50,000 in interstate commerce.
It is admitted, and I find, that the Respondent is an
employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
II. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Issues
The Respondent admits the discharge of Billie J.
Holbrook, hereinafter called Holbrook, but denies that the
reasons therefor are discriminatory, maintaining that it
discharged Holbrook for conduct harmful to the Respon-
dent. Thus, the issues presented are:
1. Whether the conduct in which Holbrook engaged
constituted concerted activity within the meaning of
Section 8(a)( 1) of the Act.
2. Whether such concerted activity, if any, was protect-
ed within the meaning of Section 8(aXl) of the Act.
3. Whether, if the action in which Holbrook engaged
was protected concerted activity, did the Respondent
discharge her for that reason or for cause.
B. The Nature of Respondent's Operations
The fact that the Respondent is a nongovernmental,
impartial, administrative agency which provides the means
for resolving disputes of various types through the process
of arbitration is generally well known. However, in order to
successfully fulfill its mission, it must preserve the confi-
dentiality of its proceedings, which, by the Respondent's
own rules, are private to the parties. Only the arbitrator, in
a particular case, with the consent of the parties, can decide
who shall be present at any proceeding. Unlike governmen-
tally established courts, the Respondent's records and the
records of proceedings conducted under its auspices are
not public records and are maintained in the strictest of
confidence. Although the decisions of the arbitrators on the
Respondent's list are published by various services from
time to time, all other matters relative thereto, including its
71
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
list of arbitrators in the various fields covered by its
operations, are confidentially maintained.
Additionally, under the Respondent's rules, the parties to
a proceeding may not make contact with the arbitrator
during the course of the proceeding, except at the hearing,
and the Respondent very vigorously discourages any
contact by a party with the arbitrator even after the
arbitrator's decision has been rendered. Thus, the sterility
of the process is assured.
To further insure the confidentiality of the entire process,
among the Respondent's employees are individuals classi-
fied as "tribunal administrators," who assist in the
selection of arbitrators, select hearing dates, handle the
correspondence which comes into the office from the
parties, and sends the parties the awards made by the
arbitrators. To assist in maintaining confidentiality, the
tribunal administrators handle all communication between
the parties and the arbitrators once a proceeding has begun
so that no personal contact is made between any party and
an arbitrator in any particular proceeding.'
It is in the context of this strictly confidential mode of
operation that the events which constitute the alleged
unfair labor practice herein occurred.
C. The Events
One of the tribunal administrators, whose duties are
outlined above, was Holbrook, the Charging Party herein.
Although the Respondent had no specific dress code, its
employees' handbook stressed personal appearance and
requested that, because employees meet and serve the
public, they maintain a high standard of personal appear-
ance. However, about the time of the events which
ultimately led to Holbrook's discharge, the Respondent's
management had observed a deterioration in the personal
appearance of many of its clerical employees and, on one
occasion, when Harry B. Payne, the Respondent's regional
director, was otherwise engaged and was thereby forced to
send someone else to a meeting, the only available
individual was wearing jeans. As a result, and after at least
two meetings with the employees, at which attire was
discussed, on Wednesday, November 19, 1975, a day when
Holbrook was not at work, Regional Director Payne
informed the employees they could no longer wear jeans to
work in the office. He explained the reason therefor, which
was as noted, that lawyers, arbitrators, and litigants
regularly came into the office and jeans did not appear to
be proper dignified attire.
When Holbrook returned to the office on Thursday,
November 20, she was accosted by various clerical
employees and other female employees with the news of
the ban on wearing jeans in the office. The matter was
discussed by Holbrook with the said individuals at that
time and at another time the next day when the individuals
were having lunch with Holbrook. During these discus-
sions Holbrook, who normally did not wear jeans in the
office because of her position, but who at one time during a
period of severe storms did wear jeans, expressed her
sympathy with the individuals who complained about the
I From uncontroverted portions of the testimony of the Respondent's
regional director. Harry B. Payne, and Holbrook.
ban on jeans and told them that if they wanted to do
something about it they should do so as a group and
complain to the regional director. At that time, Holbrook
did not volunteer to speak on behalf of the individuals, nor
did they request that she do so.
At the luncheon meeting on Friday, November 21, the
girls told Holbrook that they thought it was unfair and that
they should be allowed to wear what they wanted; that
jeans were a much less expensive mode of dress than other
kinds of clothing which they could ill afford on their
salaries. Again Holbrook said she felt they were right in
their objections. At about that time, a supervisor in the
office, Michael Hartford, approached and said there would
be no further discussion on the matter. This ended the
meeting.
Over that weekend, Holbrook thought over the matter
and on Sunday, November 23, wrote a letter to the
American Arbitration Association's headquarters in New
York, addressed to Michael F. Hoelloring, vice president of
the Respondent, telling how she felt about the ban on jeans
and other matters. This letter, dated November 23, 1975,
related the history of the complaints with regard to the
wearing of jeans in the office and the ultimate decision of
Payne to the effect that jeans could no longer be worn.
Holbrook went on to state that, despite the fact that
because of her position she did not wear jeans and wore a
more formal mode of dress, she would not compromise her
position on the right to wear jeans. Holbrook went on to
relate, in the letter, that she was therefore taking a stand on
behalf of the secretaries to the effect that it was unfair and
displayed an uncompromising and unliberal point of view
to forbid the wearing of jeans in view of the fact that the
secretaries' salaries were not adequate to provide the type
of clothing which would necessarily have to be worn to
satisfy what Payne required by way of proper attire. The
letter also refers to the fact that Holbrook had, once before,
been discharged by Payne but had been rehired after a
group of supervisors refused to support Payne's position.
However, the letter did not outline what the reason for the
earlier discharge was.
Additionally, the letter related that Holbrook was told by
Supervisor Robert Newman that Payne had stated that if
anyone called New York they would be discharged.
However, Holbrook emphasized that if she was to teach
"young minds to have the courage of their convictions, I
feel at this point I can only do so by example. Tomorrow
morning I shall take the type of clothing I usually wear
with me to the office, but I shall wear my jeans."
Holbrook ended the letter by stating that she was not
trying to be retaliatory, obstinate, or vindictive, but felt
that Payne left her no alternative. Significantly, the letter
also stated that when Newman had warned her about
contacting New York with regard to the clothing issues she
told him that she was contacting New York as well with
regard to a "myriad of others [issues] that I had let go
asunder because in these times of high [un]employment I
felt my job would be in jeopardy."
In testifying Holbrook stated that one of the matters
which she had "let go asunder" was the fact that a public
72
AMERICAN ARBITRATION ASSOCIATION, INC.
relations position had opened in the Detroit office for
which she had applied but had not been considered for by
Payne.
On the next workday, Monday, November 24, Holbrook
appeared at the office in a pair of tight, worn jeans. She
appeared in the same clothing the next day, November 25.
Later in the day, when she was observed wearing these
clothes by Payne, he instructed her to go home until she
wore proper attire. He did not, even according to the
testimony of Holbrook herself, use the word "suspended."
However, evidently Holbrook took Payne's sending her
home to get proper attire to mean suspended, and
consulted an attorney. The attorney told her that "suspend-
ed" did not mean discharge, but it did not mean that she
could go to work. However, as noted above, there is no
evidence in the record that Holbrook actually was ever
suspended by Payne for wearing jeans.
Holbrook did not appear at the office for the balance of
that week except on Saturday, when no one was there. She
came into the office on that day to check on her caseload
and to see that her work was not neglected. However,
despite this loyalty to her work, on Wednesday, December
I, while she was on what she thought was suspension, she
sent a letter to a list of individuals and companies who did
business with the Respondent in that they brought matters
before the Respondent for arbitration or were themselves
arbitrators. This letter stated that due to her violation of
Payne's ban on jeans in the office she had been suspended
from her position as tribunal administrator with the
Respondent. She then stated in that letter that the
secretaries had asked that the question of jeans in the office
be resolved at the next staff meeting, but that, since it was
the people who used the Respondent for their arbitration
matters, the sooner the vital issue was settled the sooner the
staff at the Respondent's Detroit facility would be able to
give their undivided attention to the cases of the individu-
als to whom the letters were addressed. She then stated that
they could help solve the dilemma by completing an
enclosed questionnaire and returning it to Holbrook as
soon as possible.
The questionnaire which was attached to the foregoing
letter contained five questions which are set forth below in
the order and in the manner which they appear on the
questionnaire.
JEANS QUESTIONAIRE [sic]
1. Should jeans suits be allowed to be worn by (a)
supervisors, (b) secretaries, (c) the director, (d) adminis-
trators? ---
2. Are jeans hats more appropriate when worn on the
heads of (a) administrators, (b) secretaries, (c) janitors,
(d) directors, (e) supervisors? ---
3. Do jeans jackets look better on (a) dogs, (b)
directors, (c) administrators, (d) all of the above, (e)
none of the above? -- -
4. When worn in the reception area, are jeans
coveralls more attractive on (a) attorneys, (b) secretar-
ies, (c) supervisors, (d) nobody in the whole world? -
5. Should jeans be worn in the office of the AAA by
(a) children, (b) monkeys, (c) directors, (d) administra-
tors, (e) electricians, (f) letter carriers, (g) claimant's
attorney, (h) respondent's attorney, (i) claimant, (j)
dogs, (k) grownups, 0) the President, (m) temporary
help, (n) part time help, (o) permanent part time help,
(p) supervisors, (q) janitors, (r) anyone from the firm of
Sommers, Schwartz, Silver, (s) nobody from D.A.I.I.E.,
(t) reporters, (u) Italians, (v) Xerox sales representa-
tives, (w) witnesses, (x) secretaries, (y) some of the
above, (z) all of the above? ---.
IF RETURNING THIS QUESTIONAIRE [sic] IS TOO
INCONVENIENT, PLEASE CALL AND I WILL BE GLAD TO
TAKE YOUR PREFERENCE OVER THE PHONE.
On December 2, Holbrook wrote a letter to Payne in
which she stated that she was advised by Mildred York,
one of the officials in New York who held the title of
personnel directof, that no final decision regarding her
suspension had been made. She said that she therefore
assumed her position at that time was at best tenuous but
that she had been advised by her attorney that one does
not return to work when suspended. According to
Holbrook she had spoken to York the day before and York
had told her that her suspension was still in effect.
However, Payne, in testifying, insisted that he never
advised anyone that Holbrook was suspended, he merely
told Holbrook to go home until she could wear proper
attire. I credit Payne over Holbrook in this regard because
his testimony conformed more logically to the events as
they occurred than did the testimony of Holbrook. I
conclude that Holbrook attempted to tell the truth as she
saw it. There is no doubt that she did feel that she was
suspended although she was not told that in so many
words. However, I do not credit Holbrook with regard to
what she was told by York with regard to any suspension.
It should be noted, that Holbrook's conversation with
York on the telephone occurred on the day before
Holbrook wrote the questionnaire. Holbrook had returned
to work on Monday, December 1, and had left, according
to Holbrook, only after she received a call from York that
she was still on suspension. As noted above, she mailed the
letter with the questionnaire on December 2 to attorneys,
among others, who were on her caseload, approximately 40
altogether.
Although Holbrook did call her secretary, Jean Merrett,
and another secretary, Karen Jenkins, on December 2
before she mailed the December I letter to which the
questionnaire was attached, and although Holbrook
testified that Merrett and Jenkins both told her something
to the effect that the questionnaire "sounds good. We're
behind you," both of these individuals, in testifying, denied
that they consented to the questionnaire or approved the
same.
On December 4, secretary Merrett called Holbrook and
told the latter that Payne had returned from New York and
announced to the staff that there would no longer be a ban
on wearing jeans. As a result of this call and a call to her
attorney, Holbrook testified that she called Payne on
December 5, who told her she was to come back to work.
She then told Payne that she had to buy a car on Monday,
December 8, but would be on the job as usual on
December 9. According to Holbrook, and in this respect I
73
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
credit her, Payne told her, "You are needed in the office,
but I'll give you Monday off." Accordingly, Holbrook
purchased the automobile on Monday and reported to
work at her normal hour on Tuesday, December 9. Shortly
thereafter she was summoned to Payne's office where
Payne informed her, "Your services are no longer needed."
When Holbrook stated that she did not understand,
Payne told her she had used an office mailing list and
further told Holbrook that she was to leave immediately.
Payne explained that the New York office told him that
Holbrook had used an official list to send out the
questionnaire. Holbrook, in testifying, denied that the
Respondent had an official mailing list and that Holbrook
had gotten the names of the lawyers from a "Lawyers
Handy Book." She stated that she also may have used the
telephone book. She further stated that she sent the
questionnaire because she thought it would be an effective
way to get permission for the secretaries to wear their style
of dress. Holbrook admitted that she distributed the
questionnaire to get the ban on jeans rescinded.
Payne testified, as noted above, with regard to the
confidentiality of the work of the Respondent. He stated,
therefore, that he was instructed by New York to discharge
Holbrook because of what they felt constituted a breach of
that confidentiality by using the list of attorneys and
arbitrators who were on the panel and who used the
services of the Respondent. Payne, in testifying, also
related that he was called by several individuals, arbitrators
and attorneys, who wanted to know what kind of behavior
had led to what they considered the childish and immature
questionnaire. Payne explained that this greatly embar-
rassed the organization for which both he and Holbrook
were working. These, according to Payne, were the reasons
why Holbrook was discharged.
D. Discussion and Conclusions
As noted above, the General Counsel contends that
Holbrook was engaged in protected concerted activity
when she protested the ban against jeans and that the
material which she sent, the letters which she wrote, and
her behavior, including the wearing of the tight jeans to the
office on 2 successive days, were the reasons for her
discharge and that, accordingly, in discharging her for
these reasons the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of
the Act, in that it interfered with the Section 7 rights not
only of Holbrook but of the other employees in the office.
On the other hand, the Respondent contends that, in the
first instance, there is no evidence that Holbrook was
engaged in concerted activity and, furthermore, the activity
in which she engaged, the use of the confidential list, and
the questionnaire which caused the Respondent much
embarrassment were the reasons for Holbrook's discharge
and therefore, even assuming Holbrook engaged in
concerted activity, such activity was not protected.
Counsel for the General Counsel argues that the
questionnaire sent to various individuals, as above out-
lined, and the letters to Payne and to Respondent's New
York headquarters were all in support and furtherance of
2 Diagnostic Center Hospital Corp. of Texas, 228 NLRB 1215, 1217
(1977).
the efforts by the secretaries and others to seek the
revocation of Payne's prohibition against the wearing of
jeans, and were the result of the meeting between the
secretaries and Holbrook at which the secretaries and
Holbrook expressed their opposition to the ban on wearing
jeans in the Respondent's office. According to counsel for
the General Counsel, it follows, therefore, that the
discharge of Holbrook for sending the letters and question-
naire constitute interference, coercion, and restraint in
violation of Section 8(aX)() of the Act in that the discharge
was in retaliation for Holbrook engaging in protected
concerted activity.
The Respondent, on the other hand, argues that
Holbrook undertook to act on her own, neither at the
request, nor with the consent of, the secretaries or others
who were unhappy with Payne's ban on wearing jeans.
Accordingly, the Respondent concludes that Holbrook was
not engaged in concerted activity. Moreover, the Respon-
dent argues that the use of the list of lawyers and
arbitrators, which was maintained in confidence by the
Respondent, and the questionnaire sent to these individu-
als, because it was childish and disparaged the Respondent,
constituted acts of disloyalty and thus the activity in which
Holbrook engaged cannot be considered protected, even if
found to be concerted.
In its very recent Decision, in which it discusses what
constitutes concerted activity, 2 the Board stated that an
employee's activity was concerted and protected "irrespec-
tive of whether she was overtly designated by other
employees to act on their behalf or informed any employee
that she was doing so. It is clear from the circumstances set
forth above that Birdwell's fellow employees shared her
concern and interest in the subject matter of the letter and,
consequently, that Birdwell was acting concertedly on
behalf of her fellow employees." 3 The Board further stated
that designation to act is not necessary "so long as there is
evidence that fellow employees share the acting employee's
concern and interest in common complaints." 4
Although the above quotations are from dicta in the
Diagnostic Center Hospital Corp. of Texas case, inasmuch as
the Board decided that case upon other grounds, neverthe-
less, it would seem that the Board, at the present time,
would find that Holbrook's intention of assisting the
secretaries and herself with regard to what they all
considered an unfair ban on wearing jeans constituted
concerted activity in that although Holbrook was not
appointed by the other individuals involved to act as their
spokesman, she, nevertheless, was attempting to make a
point with regard to a matter which was of common
interest to all of them and which constituted a common
complaint. I therefore find and conclude that Holbrook
was, indeed, engaged in concerted activity.
However, whether this concerted activity was protected
is another matter. Although Holbrook testified that she
took the names of the individuals to whom she sent the
letter enclosing the questionnaire above set forth from the
"Lawyers Handy Book," which is accessible to any
individual and which is in no way a confidential document,
and that she also used the telephone book, nevertheless, she
3 d.
4 Ibid, citing Alleluia Cushion Co., Inc., 221 NLRB 999(1975).
74
AMERICAN ARBITRATION ASSOCIATION, INC.
also testified that she sent the letter to attorneys and
arbitrators who were on her caseload. Inasmuch as the
attorneys and arbitrators who were on her caseload would
had to have been listed in a confidential manner by the
Respondent because of its overall desire to keep all of the
matters in which it was involved confidential by reason of
the very nature of the Respondent's activities, it would
seem that there was a breach of such confidentiality in
using the names of the attorneys on Holbrook's caseload.
Although not above recited, Holbrook's caseload consti-
tuted only automobile accident claim cases. Holbrook
admitted that the arbitrators, who were on the panel for
this type of claim, were unpaid and volunteered their
services. Accordingly, it is understandable that the Respon-
dent would have been very much upset by Holbrook's use
of the list of such volunteer arbitrators, and having the
latter see the questionnaire. Therefore, I find it believable
that Respondent considered the actions of Holbrook not
only to have been disloyal but very possibly to have had
the effect of discouraging the arbitrators from volunteering
their services in these matters in the future. This is
particularly true inasmuch as the fifth question in the
questionnaire mentioned a prominent law firm which used
the arbitration services in accident claim cases and the
D.A.I.I.E., which is an organization involved directly in the
insurance adjusting of auto accident claims. It would seem,
from a perusal of the entire questionnaire, that in a very
real sense the questionnaire constitutes a holding up to
ridicule of the Respondent in the very comparisons which
the questionnaire requests the reader to make. The mention
of dogs and other animals in the same breath as law firms
and insurance adjusters would indicate not only a lack of
good judgment on the part of Holbrook, but would give the
reader the impression that she was purposely endeavoring
to embarrass the Respondent in order to force the
Respondent to change its clothing code insofar as Payne
had forbidden the wearing of jeans in the Respondent's
office. While it may not have been Holbrook's intention to
embarrass or disparage, in the circumstances surrounding
the distribution of the questionnaire, this could well have
been the result in the mind of the reader of the question-
naire. The very fact that some of the recipients of the
questionnaire called Payne and wanted to know what the
"childish" questionnaire was all about is indicative of this
result.
Additionally, although Holbrook claimed in her letter to
the New York headquarters of the Respondent that she
was not writing the letter or complaining about Payne and
his administration of the Respondent's Detroit office in
any retaliatory, obstinate, or vindictive sense, she neverthe-
less mentioned in the letter a "myriad of others that I had
let go asunder," referring to matters which she considered
s N.LRB. v. Local Union No. 1229, International Brotherhood of
Electrical Workers [Jefferson Standard Broadcasting Company], 346 U.S. 464
(1953); The Hoover Company. 90 NLRB 1614, enfd. 191 F.2d 380 (C.A. 6,
1951).
6 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the
were unfair to her that had occurred by reason of certain
actions of Payne.
Accordingly, I must conclude that in sending the
questionnaire, Holbrook was not completely innocent or
unaware of the possible results but, rather, I find and
conclude that there was some pique and vengeance
involved. It could well be said that "the lady doth protest
too much" when she stated in her letter to New York that
she was not seeking vengeance.
However, whether Holbrook meant to disparage the
Respondent through the use of the questionnaire and the
use of the list of the lawyers and the arbitrators with whom
she was familiar through her position as a tribunal
administrator, the use of which I have already found to
have been a breach of the Respondent's policy of
confidentiality, is immaterial. Although the disparagement
and the embarrassment caused the Respondent by the
questionnaire which Holbrook composed and distributed
may not have been as severe as in the cases cited by
counsel for the Respondent, 5 nevertheless, it did constitute
an attack upon the Respondent which was sufficient to
deprive Holbrook of the protection of Section 7 of the Act.
Otherwise put, Holbrook's action went beyond the outer
limits the Congress envisioned when it established the
Section 7 rights of employees. The combination of the use
of the confidential files with the ridicule evident in the
questionnaire constitutes disloyalty for which Holbrook
was discharged and which, accordingly, deprived Holbrook
of the protection of the Act and gave the Respondent
reason for Holbrook's discharge, which I find to have been
warranted and lawful.
Accordingly, I find and conclude that in discharging
Holbrook the Respondent has not violated Section 8(aX1)
of the Act because the concerted activity in which
Holbrook engaged was not protected.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
I. American Arbitration Association, Inc., is an em-
ployer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section
2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. By discharging Billie J. Holbrook, an individual, the
Respondent has not violated Section 8(aXl) of the Act.
On the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and
conclusions of law, and upon the entire record, and
pursuant to Section 10(b) of the Act, I hereby issue the
following recommended:
ORDERS
It is ordered that the complaint herein be, and it hereby
is, dismissed in its entirety.
Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the findings.
conclusions, 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.
75