American Hospital Association

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 9, 1977

230 N.L.R.B. 54 (N.L.R.B. 1977)

DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
American Hospital Association and Paul Von Ebers.
Case 13-CA-15542
June 9, 1977
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS JENKINS, MURPHY, AND
WALTHER
On February 4, 1977, Administrative Law Judge
James L. Rose issued the attached Decision in this
proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed exceptions
and a supporting 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 brief
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 Respondent, American Hospi-
tal Association, Chicago, Illinois, its officers, agents,
successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth
in the said recommended Order.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
JAMES L. ROSE, Administrative Law Judge: This matter
was heard before me at Chicago, Illinois, on November 15
and 16, 1976, upon the General Counsel's complaint which
alleged that three employees of the Respondent were
discharged on March 23, 1976, because they had engaged
in protected, concerted activity. It is alleged that the
discharges were violative of Section 8(a)(1) of the National
Labor Relations Act, as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 151, et seq.
On the basis of the record as a whole, including my
observation of the witnesses, briefs, and arguments of
counsel, I hereby make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
i. BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
The American Hospital Association is an Illinois
corporation which is engaged in the business of gathering,
analyzing, publishing, and selling information relating to
and concerning hospitals. Each year in connection with
this business the Respondent receives gross revenues in
excess of $500,000 from the sale of books and other
230 NLRB No. 10
publications, and it receives goods, products, and materials
valued in excess of $50,000 which are shipped directly from
points outside the State of Illinois. The Respondent admits,
and I find, that it is an employer engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
In. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Factual Background
The parties are in general agreement concerning the
operative facts of this matter. The dispute concerns
evaluation of those facts and the inferences to be drawn
therefrom. Very briefly, in the fall of 1975, five employees
(the three dischargees and two others) determined to bring
to the attention of fellow employees and management
certain grievances they had, including such management
decisions as taking away use of a meeting room and
instituting a dress code. The vehicle for raising these
matters was the publication of a leaflet styled "Turkey
Tactics." Five issues of "Turkey Tactics" were published
between November 19, 1975, and March 22, 1976. The text
of these five issues are reproduced as appendixes to this
Decision.
The principal writers and publishers of "Turkey Tactics"
were Paul Von Ebers, Mitchell Jonathan Arlook, and
Caryn Stack. Participating with them also was Kathleen
Murrin, who before the March 23 discharges had trans-
ferred from the Respondent to a sister organization. A fifth
employee was involved only to a limited extent and was
therefore not discharged.
Management officials testified that they were very
concerned about the publication of "Turkey Tactics"; they
tried to find out who was responsible, and when they did,
on or about March 22, 1976, the three principals were
discharged.
Subsequently Von Ebers, Arlook, and Stack each
protested the discharge through the Respondent's griev-
ance procedure. Stack was reinstated without loss of pay or
benefits because she had previously announced that she
would resign in July to attend medical school.
"Turkey Tactics" was printed on a offset press away
from the Respondent's premises and distributed after
working hours. A copy was placed on each employee's desk
as well as the desks of supervisors.
B. Issues
The principal issues in this matter are whether the
publication of "Turkey Tactics" was protected, concerted
activity, and whether the discharges for having participated
in its publication were violative of Section 8(aX I).
The Respondent seems to argue: (a) That publishing the
leaflets was not protected because other mechanisms
existed by which the employees could pursue their
grievances and/or, (b) even if normally protected, this
activity lost its protected character because it was anony-
mous and conveyed "ridicule, insubordination, and harass-
ment."
For the reasons set forth below, I find that publication
and distribution of "Turkey Tactics" was protected, did
54
AMERICAN HOSPITAL ASSOCIATION
not lose its character as such, and that discharge of the
three employees violated Section 8(aX I) of the Act.
C. Analysis and Concluding Findings
At the hearing, counsel for the Respondent stated that
the behavior of Von Ebers, Arlook, and Stack prior to
March 23, other than publication of "Turkey Tactics,"
contributed to their dismissal. However, in sum, the
testimony of the Respondent's witnesses is to the effect that
but for the publication and distribution of "Turkey
Tactics," the three would not have been discharged.
Thus, in memorandums signed by Robert Linde, manag-
er of the Division of Information Services, it is stated: "The
action (discharge of Von Ebers) was taken because I was
convinced that Mr. Von Ebers was involved in publication
of Turkey Tactics." And again, "The action [discharge of
Arlook I taken was made because I was convinced that Mr.
Arlook was involved in suggesting, preparing or distrib-
uting the publication, 'Turkey Tactics'." Finally, "I stated I
had discussed the publication with vice presidents and that
I believed she [Stack] was involved in the publication
which expressed disloyalty to the Association. It was
decided to terminate her services that day."
Whether the Respondent may have had good reasons for
discharging the three employees, it is overwhelmingly clear
from the record that they were in fact discharged when
they were because the Respondent concluded that they
were causing the publication and distribution of "''Turkey
Tactics." To the extent that the Respondent now offers
other reasons for their discharges, such are clearly
pretextuous. This case involves "Turkey Tactics" only.
As indicated, the Respondent argues that distribution of
"Turkey Tactics" was not protected because the Associa-
tion has two mechanisms by which employees can bring to
the attention of management such grievances they may
have concerning working conditions.
In essence, the Respondent argues that even if presenting
grievances through an anonymous publication would
normally be protected by Section 7, where there exist other
means of taking up grievances with management, those
means must be used exclusively. Any activity by employees
different from those means is not protected.
In support of its position, the Respondent cites two cases
which are not in point. E.g., Farmers Union Cooperative
Marketing Ass'n., 145 NLRB 1, 2-3 (1963), where discharge
of an employee because he used the contractual grievance
procedure was held to be violative of Section 8(aX I), the
Board stated:
. . .the Board has also held that, where an employee
does not utilize his contractual right to grieve or goes
"over the head" of his bargaining agent to press his
individual claim, his grievance becomes "personal" and
loses its statutory protection.
The issue discussed here by the Board was whether the
Act of an individual may or may not be "concerted."
The Respondent cited no case where the Board has held
that a company can limit the means by which employees
can concertedly press matters involving their mutual aid or
protection.
The "formal grievance procedure," which the Respon-
dent contends the employees should have used, is not
mutually binding. Rather it consists of a procedure set up
and controlled by the Respondent. There is no showing
that employees gave up their right to press grievances in
other ways as a quidpro quo for this procedure, or that they
could even invoke it as a means of presenting their
contentions here.
The second "vehicle" provided by the Association was
the "Employee Relations Committee" established by the
Respondent. It has employee members and it exists, in part
at least, as a means by which employees can present
matters of common concern involving terms and condi-
tions of employment to management. According to the
testimony of Vice President Sharon Yenney, it was created
by the Association and continues to be run by the
Association.
Although the complaint does not allege a violation of
Section 8(aX2), it is clear that the Employee Relations
Committee is a labor organization within the meaning of
Section 2(5) of the Act, and that it is not only assisted but
in fact is dominated by the Respondent.
Without determining, because such is not before me,
whether existence of the Employee Relations Committee is
violative of Section 8(aX2) of the Act, certainly it cannot be
found to be the bargaining representative of any of the
three employees here. Nor would any employee be bound
to present grievances only through the Employee Relations
Committee. Bypassing the Employee Relations Committee
would not vitiate otherwise protected, concerted activity.
In short, I conclude that an employer may not prescribe,
to the exclusion of all other lawful means, the method by
which employees may engage in concerted activity for their
mutual aid and protection.
Accordingly, these three employees had the right under
Section 7 of the Act to present grievances relating to their
working conditions-the meeting room, certain manage-
ment decisions affecting their basic jobs, morale of
employees, the dress code, and the like. These clearly
involved "mutual aid and protection" and are matters
therefore protected within the broad scope of Section 7.
While the Respondent does not specifically dispute this,
it is claimed that the publication of "Turkey Tactics" was
not really for the purpose of promoting these concerns, but
rather was for the purpose of insulting and ridiculing
management.
This dovetails with Respondent's final argument that
even if distribution of leaflets by employees is generally
protected, because of its insubordinate nature, "Turkey
Tactics" lost its protection. Thus the Respondent could
discharge the perpetrators of this with impunity.
The Board has considered this subject on many occa-
sions and has concluded that otherwise protected activity
loses its character as such, or the employee engaging in it
renders himself unfit for further service, where the
associated language is sufficiently bad. Thus, in Ben Perkin
Corporation, the Board held that the language said in
i 181 NLRB 1025 (1970), enfd. 452 F.2d 205 (C.A. 7. 1971).
55
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
connection with protected activity is itself protected unless
"it was so offensive, defamatory or opprobrious as to
remove it from the protection of the Act." Other phraseolo-
gy has been used to describe what it takes for the
protection to be lost: "malice or deliberate intention to
falsify";2 "deliberately and maliciously false"; 3 "such
flagrant, violent, serious, or extreme misconduct"; 4
"fraught with malice";5 "in malicious opposition to the
exercise by Respondent of a right"; 6 "malicious or bad-
faith intent";7 "deliberately or maliciously false"; s "so
offensive, obscene, or obnoxious"; 9 "in the most flagrant
or egregious of cases;"' 0 and "so flagrant, violent, or
extreme." 11
In analyzing whether an employee's particular act lost
the protection of the Act, the Board stated in Prescott
Industrial Products Company: 12
That line is drawn between cases where employees
engaged in concerted activities exceed the bounds of
lawful conduct in a moment of animal exuberance or in
a manner not motivated by improper motives and those
flagrant cases in which the misconduct is so violent or
of such character as to render the employee unfit for
further service.
In these cases, sometimes it is held that the language is
not protected and therefore discharge for its use is not in
violation of the Act. Other times it is held that using the
language in question made one unfit for continued
employment, and discharge for unfitness is not a violation.
Though the emphasis may be somewhat different, the
concept is the same, and the rule appears to be: One may
not be discharged for engaging in protected concerted
activity, but if in the course of engaging in such activity, he
uses sufficiently opprobrious, profane, defamatory, or
malicious language then he may be discharged for this
reason.
In any event, the burden is on the employer to show that
the language is sufficiently bad so as to justify the
discharge. That is, from a review of these cases it appears
that once the General Counsel established that the
employee in fact engaged in protected, concerted activity
and was discharged for that reason, the burden of
persuasion shifted to the Respondent to demonstrate the
quantum of opprobrium to justify the discharge.
For instance, as the Board said in Leviton Manufacturing
Co. Inc., 13 where the discharge of four employees for filing
a civil action against the Company was held unlawful:
This activity is protected under the Act unless this
activity was done with malice or in bad faith. In our
view, the evidence clearly failed to establish any
malicious or bad-faith intent. Accordingly, such dis-
charge constituted an interference, restraint, and
I Westinghouse Electric Corporation, 77 NLRB 1058, 1060(1948).
3 American Shuffleboard Company, 92 NLRB 1272, 1274(1951).
4 Indiana Gear Works, 156 NLRB 397,400 (1965).
5 Hicks Ponder Company, 168 NLRB 806, 815 (1967).
6 Ibid.
Leviton Manufacturing Company, Inc., 203 NLRB 309, 311 (1973).
8 Jacobs Transfer, Inc., 201 NLRB 210. 218(1973).
9 Southwestern Bell Telephone Company, 200 NLRB 667, 670 (1972).
10 American Telephone & Telegraph Co., 211 NLRB 782, 783 (1974).
coercion with respect to the Section 7 rights, thus
violated Section 8(aXl) of the Act.
And in American Shuffleboard Company,14 the Board
said:
Employees do not forfeit the protection of the Act if,
in discussing matters of such vital common concern as
their employer's financial status, they give currency to
inaccurate information. Furthermore, since there is no
evidence that Paladino's report, even if inaccurate, was
deliberately or maliciously false, it is immaterial that
the Respondent may have acted upon a good-faith
belief that such was the case.
Finally, on the question of the burden of proof, the Board
noted in Wall Manufacturing Company: 15
There is no cogent evidence (presented by the
Respondent) that the allegations (by the discharged
employees) were with intent to falsify or maliciously
injure the Respondent, that they were defamatory or
insulting in character, or that they were manifestly
destructive of discipline.
The question here is whether the Respondent has
demonstrated that the language used in the five publica-
tions of "Turkey Tactics" was so opprobrious, flagrant,
insulting, defamatory, insubordinate, fraught with malice,
etc., as to justify the discharge of Von Ebers, Arlook, and
Stack.
In my judgment the Respondent has failed to met its
burden of establishing a sufficient quantum of literary
abuse to justify the discharges.
Aside from the leaflets themselves, the only evidence that
the language used was in any way insulting or opprobrious
were the conclusions to that effect by the Respondent's
management employees. Such is scarcely determinative of
the matter, lest every time an employee engages in
protected activity they risk discipline if the employer
happens to take offense.
In this, as in the cases cited, the language itself must be
analyzed, giving due regard to employee rights. Any error
should be in favor of allowing employees to enjoy the
protection of the Act.
It may well be that to some extent and to some people
the essence of "Turkey Tactics" was insulting to manage-
ment. Indeed, anytime a manager is critized by employees
he must, to some extent, feel insulted. It may also have
been the case that when in "Turkey Tactics," Volume 3,
two former managers were likened to three other individu-
als who had been notable failures, such was insulting.
However, on balance I cannot believe that these leaflets,
II Dreis & Krump Manufacturin& Inc., 221 NLRB 309. 315 (1975).
12 205 NLRB 51 (1973). While the Eighth Circuit denied enforcement of
this case, 500 F.2d 6 (1974), the Board has specifically declined to accept
that determination. The holding of Prescott is still binding. J. P. Stevens &
Co., Inc., 219 NLRB 850 (1975).
13 Supra, fn. 7, at 311.
14 Supra, fn. 3, at 1275.
15 137 NLRB 1317, 1319(1962).
56
AMERICAN HOSPITAL ASSOCIATION
even if sarcastically written, rise to the level of opprobri-
ousness to justify the discharges.
It is noted that here, unlike other cases where the
employee activity was found to be detrimental to the
employer's business, thus justifying the discharges e.g.,
Local Union 1229 International Brotherhood of Electrical
Workers v. N. LR.B.,16 "Turkey Tactics" was not distribut-
ed to the general public but remained within the confines
of the Respondent's business.
Richard Uyvri, one of the supervisors who was specifi-
cally criticized in "Turkey Tactics" with regard to his
implementation of a dress code testified: "I felt that I was
being attacked by my fellow employees and I was
outraged." He stated that he took up the matter of "Turkey
Tactics" with his immediate supervisors asking that some
disciplinary action be brought against those who were
publishing it.
While I have no doubt that Uyvri, or indeed anyone who
is criticized, is not happy with the fact, that he was
"outraged" stretches his credibility and, in any event, my
observation of him on the witness stand does not persuade
me that in fact he considered this matter as insulting as has
been suggested.
The testimony of the Respondent's management, partic-
ularly including that of Allen Manzano, a vice president
who made the ultimate decision of discharge, leads me to
conclude that they were unhappy, not so much with the
substance or "insulting" nature of "Turkey Tactics," but
because some employees had the temerity to criticize
management.
In any event, the mere fact that an employee may be
sarcastic or insulting in his pursuit of activity otherwise
protected should not and does not in and of itself render
the activity unprotected or him unfit for continued
employment. It must be more. It must indeed be "flagrant"
or "fraught with malice."
Here there is no indication of a malicious intent on the
part of the employees. From a reading of "Turkey Tactics,"
it is clear that there were areas of substantial concern to
employees and they were motivated to try to change what
they felt were inappropriate management decisions. Rather
than maliciously attempting to hurt the Company I
conclude from the leaflets, as well as the testimony of the
dischargees, that they were attempting to better a company
for which they were working as professionals.
Finally, and of significance in this matter, is the fact that
the management of the Respondent made no effort at any
time prior to March 23 to warn employees that publication
of "Turkey Tactics" was disapproved and that those
employees involved would be disciplined.
In all cases cited by the Respondent, and others, where
the Board has found that an employee's language associ-
ated with otherwise protected activity was nevertheless
cause for discharge, that employee had been warned in
some way that continuation would result in discipline.
For instance, in Southwestern Bell Telephone, supra,
employees wore T-shirts with "Ma Bell is a cheap mother,"
which was found to be obscene and insulting. The
16 346 U.S. 464 (1953).
17 Caryn Stack was in fact reinstated with full backpay. This was not
conditional on her resigning at a later time. Prior to her discharge she had
employees were asked to remove the T-shirts or cover them
up which they refused to do. Only then were they
disciplined.
Given that there is no evidence of a malicious intent, nor
in my judgment can such intent be implied from the
language of "Turkey Tactics"; given that the language of
"Turkey Tactics" is not particularly opprobrious, flagrant,
or sufficiently insulting to render it unprotected; and given
that in any event the Respondent made no effort to advise
employees that those responsible would be disciplined, all
lead me to conclude that the Respondent has not met its
burden of proving that the level of nastiness of these
publications was sufficient to justify discharge.
Finally, while some of the Respondent's witnesses made
general statements concerning disruption of office disci-
pline, there is no specific evidence that distribution of
"Turkey Tactics" was disruptive nor is there anything in
the leaflets which would inherently be disruptive of
discipline.
For these reasons, I conclude that the publication
distribution of "Turkey Tactics" was protected, concerted
activity; and that the Respondent has failed to establish
that somehow it lost its character as such.
Since the Respondent discharged Von Ebers, Arlook,
and Stack because of their participation in publishing and
distributing "Turkey Tactics," I find that the Respondent
thereby violated Section 8(aX l) of the Act.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
i. American Hospital Association is, and at all times
material herein has been, an employer engaged in com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the
Act.
2. By publishing and distributing a leaflet known as
"Turkey Tactics," Paul Von Ebers, Mitchell Jonathan
Arlook, and Caryn Stack engaged in concerted activity
protected by Section 7 of the Act.
3. By discharging Von Ebers, Arlook, and Stack
because they engaged in activity described in paragraph 2,
above, the Respondent interfered with, restrained, and
coerced employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed
them by Section 7 of the Act, and accordingly violated
Section 8(aXl) thereof.
4. The Respondent failed to establish that the activity
described above lost its protected character because of the
nature of the publication or the language used.
THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has committed the
unfair labor practices described above, it will be ordered to
cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative
action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. The
Respondent will be ordered to offer Paul Von Ebers and
Mitchell Jonathan Arlook l7 immediate and full reinstate-
ment to their former positions of employment or, if those
positions no longer exist, to substantially equivalent jobs,
without prejudice to their seniority or other rights or
planned to cease employment in July in order to attend medical school.
which she is now doing.
57
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
privileges, and to make them whole for any loss of wages or
other benefits that they may have suffered as a result of the
discrimination against them in accordance with the
formula set forth in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB
289 (1950), and Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB
716 (1962).
Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law,
and the entire record in this case, and pursuant to Section
10(c) of the Act, I hereby issue the following recommend-
ed:
Vol. I, No. I
26 Nov. 1975
POSH PLANNING FOR PANEL
Meeting room disappears.
Panel Survey thought responsible.
Unilateral decision once again dictates policy.
THE DIVISION TALKS TURKEY
ORDER 18
The Respondent, American Hospital Association, Chica-
go, Illinois, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns,
shall:
I. Cease and desist from:
(a) Discharging or otherwise discriminating against
employees because they have engaged in concerted activity
for their mutual aid or protection.
(b) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or
coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed
them by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action designed to
effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Offer immediate and full reinstatement to Paul Von
Ebers and Mitchell Jonathan Arlook and make them whole
for any losses in accordance with the provisions set forth in
"The Remedy" section above.
(b) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the
Board or its agents, for examination and copying, all
payroll records, social security records, timecards, person-
nel records and reports, and all other documents necessary
and relevant to analyze and compute the amount of
backpay due under this Order.
(c) Post at its facility copies of the attached notice
marked "Appendix F."'9 Copies of said notice on forms
provided by the Regional Director for Region 13, after
being duly signed by the Respondent, shall be posted
immediately upon receipt thereof and be maintained by it
for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places,
including all places where notices to employees 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.
(d) Notify the said Regional Director for Region 13, in
writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what
steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
's In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the
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 Rule 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.
i9 In the event that the Board's Order is enforced by a Judgment of a
United States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by
Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant
to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of
the National Labor Relations Board."
Turkey Tactics
the tool of the truth
APPENDIX A
Turkey Tactics
APPENDIX B
the tool of the truth
IS THE HAND FASTER THAN THE EYE?
KEEP YOUR EYES ON THE PEA...
KEEP YOUR EYES ON THE HANDS...
Vol. 1, No. 2
II December 1975
The Shell Game:
A shell game, of course, needs a pea.
We all know there is a regulation pea for this game.
We also know that the object of the game is to get
you to think that there is a pea under every shell.
Now some people will try to get you to believe that
any pea you find will do.
And some people will even try to make a pea out of a
cranberry.
What happens when you get a red pea or an empty
shell?
YOU LOSE!
So ....
Put your money on the table, boys and girls.
Take a chance and play the game at the Division of
Research Support Services.
See if you can tell the empty shells.
See if you know a cranberry from a pea. .. any
turkey worth its stuffing should.
Please report any irregularities to the hands on the
shells.
And that could get you into a whole new game.
THE DIVISION TALKS TURKEY
Turkey Tactics
APPENDIX C
the tool of the truth
Vol. 1, No. 3
DATE: December 30, 1975
TO: Richard M. Uyvari
58
AMERICAN HOSPITAL ASSOCIATION
FROM: Turkey Tactics
SUBJECT: Dress Code??
Mr. Uyvari, it has come to our attention that you are
attempting to enforce certain requirements as to the
kemptness of data analysts on the Annual Survey, to
wit: a dress code. In this regard we would like to call to
your attention the unalterable facts on the relation of
kemptness to efficiency as elucidated by the National
Study on Work Effectiveness conducted by the Com-
mission on Productivity in this year 1975. An excerpt
from this study is printed below.
COUNT I
TOT PCT I INEFFICIENT EFFICIENT ROW
I TOTAL
I
K - I
0 I
UNKEMPT I
- I
1 I
KEMPT I
-I
COLUMN
TOTAL
38
0.1
14233
48.5
14271
48.6
0 I 1 I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
14806
50.4
283
1.0
15089
51.4
I
I 14844
I 50.6
I
I 14516
I 49.4
I
29360
100.0
Mr. Uyvari, will you please bring your practice into
line with the overwhelming facts. Thank you for your
cooperation in this matter.
THE DIVISION TALKS TURKEY
Turkey Tactics
APPENDIX D
the tool of the truth
Vol. 2, No. I
26 February 1976
TURKEY TACTICS brings you a one time exclusive offer at
no charge to readers - enroll now in:
FAMOUS MANAGERS SCHOOL
Are you and your employees "speaking a different
language?"
Having morale problems?
Feeling uncomfortable in a particular role?
Having trouble explaining the budget?
In your spare time - at home, in the office - you can
learn the techniques used by the "pros."
Sign up today for these exciting courses!
FMS 101 Communications - "Let's pretend it's a two-
way street"
FMS 102 Delegation of Authority - "Don't dirty those
hands"
FMS 201 Decision Making - "Intransigence and
equivocation"
FMS 301 Motivation - "We'll analyze this after we clean
up the data"
FMS 501 Budgeting - "Where to cut and why, or pass
that ax when you're through, Al"
Join the ranks of these famous graduates:
Abe Gibron, George Custer, "Wrong-Way"
Corrigan, Fire Commr. Quinn, Bernard Ferber,
Sc. D., E. Martin Egelston, Ph. D.
Don't let this golden management opportunity pass you
by.
(advertisement) (advertisement) (advertisement)
THE DIVISION TALKS TURKEY
Turkey Tactics
APPENDIX E
the tool of the truth
Vol. 2, No. 2
18 March 1976
As the dust settles in the Division of Information
Services and calm once again returns, it would seem
time for a moment of reflection and meditation. We at
Turkey Tactics are hard pressed to come to grips with
the situation at hand. Initially, we felt an overwhelming
sense of deja vu. After all, how many times have we
been confronted with events which let us know that we
are marching quickstep toward mediocrity? With Alma
leaving, and the Department of Special Research
Studies shrinking, we do feel the sting more sharply.
Alma's standard of professionalism has ranked her high
among her peers. If time after time her superiors (those
in management) have made it clear that they do not
value her, are we really to be suprised at her departure?
Yet where will we find another colleague urging us past
the meagre bounds of data collection, with the ideas
and skills to carry it through? Certainly there is no one
here at present and the plan not to replace her will be
sorely felt.
The additional departures of Kathleen and Jenny
follow a pattern that is all too familiar. Commitments
to people and programs are on most tenuous ground
while management gropes without direction. Purpose-
less programs take root without re-examination while
projects of true import collect dust on the shelves.
Policy arises by default, not as a product of initiative
and innovation.
There does appear to be a degree of seriousness that is
new to the situation. The level of frustration in the
division is at a new high, with little hope for relief. The
59
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
forces of stagnation may be finally and completely
victorious.
THE DIVISION TALKS TURKEY
APPENDIX F
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
After a hearing in which all parties were represented and
afforded the opportunity to present evidence, it has been
found that we have violated the National Labor Relations
Act in certain respects and we have been ordered to post
this notice and to carry out its terms.
WE WILL NOT discharge or otherwise discriminate
against employees because they engage in concerted
activity protected by Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with,
restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the National
Labor Relations Act.
WE WILL offer immediate and full reinstatement to
Paul Von Ebers and Mitchell Jonathan Arlook to their
former jobs or, if such jobs no longer exist, to
substantially equivalent positions of employment and
WE WILL make them whole for any loss of wages or
benefits suffered by them as a result of the discrimina-
tion against them with interest at the rate of 6 percent
per annum.
AMERICAN HosPrrITAL
AssocnTION
60