Electronic Data Systems Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 15, 2000

331 N.L.R.B. 343 (N.L.R.B. 2000)

ELECTRONIC DATA SYSTEMS CORP. 343
Electronic Data Systems Corporation and Nettie C.
Eaton. Case 3–CA–19975
June 15, 2000
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS LIEBMAN, HURTGEN, AND
BRAME
On December 23, 1996, Administrative Law Judge
Wallace H. Nations issued the attached decision. The
General Counsel filed exceptions and a supporting brief,
and the Respondent filed an answering brief.
The National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the decision and the record
in light of the exceptions and briefs and has decided to
affirm the judge’s rulings, findings, and conclusions, as
modified below, and to adopt the recommended Order.
We agree with the judge that the Respondent did not
violate Section 8(a)(1) when it discharged Charging
Party Nettie Eaton. In adopting the judge’s dismissal of
the complaint, we find that Eaton solicited employees to
engage in a partial work stoppage and that her conduct in
this respect was not protected under Section 7 of the Act.
The Respondent provides communication services to
Xerox Corporation (Xerox) and contracts with service
vendors to resolve various technical problems for Xerox.
Charging Party Eaton worked as a service representative
in the Respondent’s customer support centers (CSC) and
was responsible for taking calls from Xerox employees
and customers concerning computer problems. When
these problems involve a telephone or a system line, CSC
employees transfer these types of issues to the Respon-
dent’s network operations center (NOC), whose sole
function is to resolve circuit problems for Xerox custom-
ers. The service vendor responsible for maintaining cir-
cuits and telephone lines for the Xerox account is Roch-
ester Telephone Company. The Respondent’s NOC em-
ployees interact daily with Rochester Telephone, some-
times as many as 12 times each day, to resolve problems
for Xerox.
On the afternoon of January 31, 1996, Eaton spoke
with her husband, who was an employee of Rochester
Telephone, and learned that Rochester Telephone em-
ployees might shortly go on strike. Later that afternoon,
Eaton sent two computer e-mail messages to her fellow
employees1 and then had direct conversations with sev-
eral NOC employees regarding the situation at Rochester
Telephone. The credited testimony establishes that in
these conversations Eaton told NOC employees not to
call, refer service requests to, or interact with Rochester
Telephone. Thereafter, the Respondent discharged Eaton
for soliciting the Respondent’s NOC employees to re-
frain from dispatching calls to the Respondent’s vendor,
Rochester Telephone, and for sending a message contain-
ing physical threats to anyone crossing picket lines.

1 Eaton’s initial e-mail message was sent to NOC employees and
stated that “Local 1170 will be on strike as (of) 12:01 tonight. Please
help support them in their effort against Rochester Telephone.”
Eaton’s second e-mail message was sent to CSC employees and stated
that “Local 1170 will be on strike from Rochester Telephone as of
12:01 tonight. Please be aware that anyone or any person crossing their
picket line will suffer the consequences. Local 1170 will be fighting
for their jobs.”
The judge found that Eaton’s actions were not con-
certed and bore no “legitimate relationship to the inter-
ests of employees, either her fellow EDS employees or
the Unionized employees of [Rochester Telephone].” It
is well settled, however, that “employees’ conduct on
behalf of the employees of another employer who are
engaged in protected concerted activity is itself protected
concerted activity.” Office Depot, Inc., 330 NLRB 640,
642 (2000), citing Boise Cascade Corp., 300 NLRB 80,
82 (1990). Thus, Eaton’s e-mail solicitation of fellow
employees to support the striking Rochester Telephone
employees was clearly concerted activity. Because she
went further, however, and asked other employees not to
call or refer service requests to Rochester Telephone, we
agree with the judge that Eaton solicited the Respon-
dent’s NOC employees to stop performing an important
portion of their jobs—referring telephone service and
circuit problems of Xerox customers to Rochester Tele-
phone—and that this amounted to the solicitation of an
intermittent, partial work stoppage by the NOC employ-
ees. Thus, Eaton essentially sought to convince the NOC
employees to stay on the job and perform a portion of
their usual duties, but to ignore the several daily dis-
patches that pertained to telephone and systems problems
normally referred to Rochester Telephone.
It is well established that a partial refusal to work, in
contrast to a complete work stoppage, is unprotected
activity because it constitutes an attempt by employees to
set their own terms and conditions of employment while
remaining on the job. Audubon Health Care Center, 268
NLRB 135 (1983). When the form of conduct at issue,
as here, is unprotected, it logically follows that the solici-
tation or inducement of such conduct also is unprotected.
See, generally, Illinois Bell Telephone Co., 255 NLRB
380, 381 (1981) (“protection may be lost when the evi-
dence demonstrates that [employees] induced employees
to engage in a work stoppage that is part of a plan or pat-
tern of intermittent action which is inconsistent with a
genuine strike”).2 Accordingly, in these circumstances,
2 The present case is distinguishable from a one-time refusal to work
mandatory overtime, which is protected because it is not an attempt to
determine unilaterally employees’ own conditions of employment.
Sawyer of Napa, 300 NLRB 131, 137 (1990). Nor is the present case
akin to the refusal of a delivery driver to cross a picket line, a tradi-
tional form of permissible support, but which may subject the driver to
replacement in the interest of balancing an employee’s protected activ-
ity with an employer’s efficient operation of its business. Torrington
Construction Co., 235 NLRB 1540 (1978), overruled in part on other
grounds by Chambersburg County Market, 293 NLRB 654 (1989);
A & L Underground, 302 NLRB 467, 468 (1991). See also Redwing
331 NLRB No. 52
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 344
we find that the Respondent’s discharge of Eaton did not
violate the Act.3
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board adopts the rec-
ommended Order of the administrative law judge and the
complaint is dismissed.

William F. Trezevant, Esq., for the General Counsel.
Vicki L. Harden, Esq., of Plano, Texas, for the Respondent.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
WALLACE H. NATIONS, Administrative Law Judge. This
case was tried in Rochester, New York, on September 25 and
26, 1996. The charge was filed on March 28, 1996,1 and the
complaint was issued on May 7, alleging that Electronic Data
Systems Corporation (EDS or Respondent) violated the Na-
tional Labor Relations Act (the Act) by unlawfully discharging
its employee, Charging Party Nettie Carol Eaton.2 Respondent
filed a timely answer wherein it admitted, inter alia, the juris-
dictional allegations of the complaint and the supervisory status
of certain of its employees.
On the entire record, including my observation of the de-
meanor of the witnesses, and after considering the briefs filed
by the parties, I make the following
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. JURISDICTION
The Respondent, a corporation, maintains its headquarters
and principal place of business in Plano, Texas. As pertinent to
this proceeding, it maintains an operational site in Rochester,
New York, where it provides information technology services
to Xerox Corporation. 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 and that the Communica-
tions Workers of America, Local 1170 (the Union) is a labor
organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
II. ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Background Facts and the Issue for Determination
The EDS employees at its Rochester facility, which will be
referred to as the Xerox/EDS Canalview facility, provide com-
munication services to one customer, Xerox. Carol Eaton was
employed at the Canalview facility by Xerox from September
29, 1980, to July 1994. In 1994 EDS entered into a 10-year, $3
billion contract with Xerox to manage Xerox’s communications
services. Thus, in August 1994 Eaton, along with several other

Carriers, Inc., 137 NLRB 1545 (1962), enfd. 325 F.2d 1011 (D.C. Cir.
1963), cert. denied 377 U.S. 905 (1964); Newbery Energy Corp., 227
NLRB 436 (1976).
3 We do not rely on the judge’s application here of NLRB v. Electri-
cal Workers IBEW Local 1229, 346 U.S. 464 (1953), inasmuch as the
present case raises no issues pertaining to the disparagement of the
Respondent’s product or services to third parties. Further, because we
have found that Eaton’s solicitation of a partial strike was unprotected,
we do not reach the issue of whether Eaton’s e-mail message that per-
sons crossing a picket line “will suffer the consequences” constituted a
threat.
1 All dates are in 1996 unless otherwise indicated.
2 Eaton’s name is spelled in this record as “Carol” and “Carole.” Not
knowing which is correct, I have chosen Carol for use in this decision.
Xerox employees at the Canalview facility became an EDS
employee. On February 1 Eaton was discharged by EDS be-
cause of certain activity engaged in by Eaton on January 31.
On that date, she sent two messages to fellow employees over
the Respondent’s internal computer system and then allegedly
urged certain fellow employees to cease utilizing one of the
Respondent’s vendors. The primary question for resolution is
whether Eaton’s actions were protected concerted activities
within the meaning of the Act. The circumstances surrounding
the sending of the messages and subsequent events will be dis-
cussed below. In this regard, the parties stipulated that Eaton is
not a member of the Union, that the Union represents no em-
ployees at EDS Canalview facility nor does any other union.
There was no union organizing activity at EDS facility at any
time relevant to this proceeding.
While employed by EDS, Eaton worked as a customer ser-
vice representative in the area known as the customer support
center (CSC). CSC employees are responsible for taking calls
from Xerox employees regarding problems they might be hav-
ing with their computers and, if possible, assisting them with
their problems. If the problems the Xerox customers are ex-
periencing are the result of a telephone line or system going
down (a “site” problem), the CSC employees function as a
clearing house and hand-off these problems to another group of
EDS employees at Canalview known as the network operations
center (NOC).
The sole function of the employees in the NOC is to resolve
circuit problems for the Xerox customers. To resolve these
problems, NOC employees must interact with the particular
vendor (as most pertinent, Rochester Telephone Company
(RTC)) that is responsible for maintaining the circuits involved.
When the problem involves circuits or telephone lines in the
Rochester area, the vendor that the NOC employees must inter-
act with to resolve these problems is Rochester Telephone.
NOC employees interact with Rochester Telephone on a daily
basis, sometimes up to 12 times a day. In short, the NOC em-
ployees at EDS Canalview facility cannot do their jobs without
interacting with (or in their words “dispatching”) Rochester
Telephone.
The contract between EDS and Xerox contains “level of ser-
vice” agreements, which require EDS to insure consistent sta-
bility in the telephone lines needed to support Xerox’s com-
puter and telephone networks. Since the inception of the con-
tract, EDS has not met the level of service agreements consis-
tently. As a result, at the time of Eaton’s termination, there
were problems in the EDS/Xerox business relationship. At the
time of Eaton’s termination, Xerox was going through year-end
financial closing. Because this was a crucial time for Xerox’s
business, it was imperative that their data communication abil-
ity (hence, the service provided by EDS Canalview employees)
be at its peak. Therefore, at the time of Eaton’s termination,
EDS was even more concerned than usual with ensuring cus-
tomer satisfaction.
B. The Events of January 31 and February 1, Which Resulted
in Eaton’s Discharge
While at work on January 31, at approximately 4 p.m., Eaton
spoke with her husband who was a Rochester Telephone em-
ployee and a member of the Union, which represented a unit of
employees at Rochester Telephone. He informed her the Union
“might be going out on strike.” On this date the contract be-
tween Rochester Telephone and the Union was set to expire
ELECTRONIC DATA SYSTEMS CORP. 345
and the parties had not reached an agreement on a successor
contract. The negotiations between these parties had been the
subject of media coverage in the area, presumably because
there had been a bitter strike following an earlier, failed nego-
tiations. Eaton testified that because of her husband’s job with
Rochester Telephone, and the media coverage, several of her
coworkers had asked her about the negotiations on several oc-
casions prior to January 31. She also testified that these ques-
tions were asked during worktime and that she would respond,
telling the questioner what she knew of the situation.
That same afternoon, after speaking to her husband, Eaton
sent two computer messages. The first went to all employees in
the NOC and read, “Local #1170 will be on strike as (of) 12:01
tonight. Please help support them in their effort against Roch-
ester Telephone . . . Carol.” The second message went to all
CSC employees and read, “Local #1170 will be on strike from
Rochester Telephone as of 12:01 tonight. Please be aware that
anyone or any person crossing their picket line will suffer the
consequences. Local #1170 will be fighting for their jobs. . .
Carol.” Eaton testified that she sent the two messages in re-
sponse to the questions some fellow employees had asked about
the labor situation at Rochester Telephone. This position is
somewhat belied by the fact that Eaton chose to send the mes-
sages to all NOC and CSC employees, not just the ones who
had expressed interest in the RTC situation. She could have
contacted her curious coworkers one on one or one at a time via
the computer. Second, the clear import of the messages is not
simply informational, it requests in one for the recipients to
actively support a union strike at another employer and in the
second threatens the recipients with unspecified harm if the
union’s picket line is crossed.3
Eaton sent both of these messages after 4 p.m. on January
31, one immediately following the other. She sent them via the
Company’s “broadcast” or “hot” message system. Messages
sent via this system appear on the recipient’s computer screen
automatically, leaving the recipient no choice but to read the
message. According to Respondent, the broadcast message
system was used at the Canalview facility solely for business
purposes, such as to inform NOC and CSC employees when
systems go down or to announce team-building events. This
appears to be the case though use of the Company’s computer
system in general is made for personal business, sometimes
with management’s knowledge and sometimes without such
knowledge. Although, there was a substantial amount of evi-
dence adduced about various personal uses to which EDS com-
puters are put, it is not an issue. Eaton was not terminated for
making personal use of the hot message system. It was the
manner in which she used the system and her subsequent ac-
tions that resulted in her termination.4
Eaton denied in her testimony that she intended by the mes-
sages to have her fellow employees stop working, not do their
jobs, or engage in insubordination against EDS. She denied
that she intended to threaten coworkers by the messages. She
also testified that following the sending of the messages she
had conversations about the subject matter of the messages with

3 EDS CSC employee, Kathleen Enck, testified that the message
made her angry because she considered it threatening. CSC Supervisor
Kathy Schlotzer also considered the message to be threatening.
4 Indeed, Eaton’s manager, and the person who terminated her em-
ployment, Bill Kane, in his affidavit given to the Board indicated that if
Eaton had only sent the message that went to the NOC employees and
nothing else she would not have been terminated.
various fellow employees. She testified that NOC employee
Tony Boler asked her if her husband had heard anything about
the RTC negotiations or possible strike. She told him what her
husband had told her earlier that day. Eaton testified that NOC
employee Gus Masotti then called her to his desk. According
to Eaton, Masotti told her that he had to dispatch calls to RTC
and she responded, “Just do what you have to do.” Eaton de-
nied that she ever gave Masotti any explicit direction to not
dispatch calls to RTC.5
Her fellow employees told a different story of the post mes-
sage conversations. Specifically, NOC employee Ken Neal, a
friend of Eaton’s, testified that Eaton told him and NOC em-
ployee Tony Boler not to call Rochester Telephone. Neal testi-
fied that he responded by asking Eaton if she were crazy be-
cause EDS employees made their living calling vendors such as
RTC. In addition, in an affidavit given to the Board in April,
Tony Boler, another friend of Eaton’s swore that in response to
Eaton’s message, he asked her, “What should people do, not
call Rochester Telephone?” Boler testified in his affidavit and
at the hearing that Eaton’s response was, “Well, if you have
to.” Boler understood Eaton to be telling him not to call Roch-
ester Telephone.6 Eaton also told NOC employee Gus Masotti
not to dispatch calls to Rochester Telephone since they were
going on strike. This comment disturbed Masotti, prompting
him to make a note of it and to inform his manager, Bill Kane,
of the comment the following morning.
According to NOC employee Dale Aldrich, on the morning
following the sending of the messages, Eaton approached him
and asked him not to support Rochester Telephone. Following
the conversation, Aldrich remembers thinking that he could not
support RTC because that is how he made his living. With
regard to this conversation, Eaton testified that she overheard
Aldrich and another NOC employee discussing the messages.
According to her, Aldrich then spoke to her across a partition
which divided the NOC and CSC work areas and asked, “What
was going on with that?” She testified that she went to his work
area and told him about the negotiations at RTC and what her
husband had told her and that the strike had not occurred. She
denied telling Aldrich not to interact with RTC.
With respect to the matter of Eaton’s postmessage interac-
tion with NOC employees as set out above, I credit the testi-
mony of the NOC employees over that of Eaton. They had
absolutely no reason to lie, appeared very credible, and their
testimony is borne out by all documented subsequent events.
Thus, I find that, as she admits, Eaton did send both messages.
I further find that after sending the messages she requested that
the NOC employees not dispatch calls to RTC and/or limit their
interaction with RTC.
Tom Lawson, the manager of the NOC, brought the fact of
the message sent to the CSC employees to his manager’s
5 There was substantial evidence put in the record to document that
Eaton and Masotti had a history of personality conflicts. Be that as it
may, I credit Masotti’s version of what was said between himself and
Eaton as it comports with the testimony of other witnesses who were
clearly friendly with Eaton.
6 A temporary employee, Norman Murray, who works in a cubicle
next to Eaton, overheard Eaton telling either Neal or Boler, or both, to
not call RTC if there was a problem. He remembers one of the men
replying that calling RTC was part of their job and they had to call.
Another fellow employee, Polly Davin, in the week prior to January 31,
heard Eaton say that RTC was unfair to its employees and that EDS
should not do business with RTC.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 346
(Kane’s) attention on the afternoon the message was sent. That
same afternoon, Kane learned that a message had also been sent
to NOC employees, a copy of which Kane obtained the next
morning. Kane also received a phone call from Masotti, who
informed him that Eaton had approached Masotti and requested
that he not interact with Rochester Telephone. Kane asked
Masotti to send him a note documenting Masotti’s conversation
with Eaton, which Masotti did.7 Thereafter, Kane spoke to the
other members of the NOC, two of whom—Ken Neal and Tony
Boler—confirmed that Eaton had also requested that they not
interact with Rochester Telephone.8 Kane prepared brief notes
of these interviews and had them typed. The typed version
reads:

“Employees interviewed 2/01/96. Each employee was
interviewed separately.
Gus Masotti, Tony Boler, and Ken Neal
Carol went to Gus, Tony & Ken’s work area on
1/31/96 between 1600 & 1700 and asked them to limit
their interactions with Rochester Telephone Company
(RTC). She also had other dialogue in attempting to so-
licit their support regarding RTC’s employee’s work stop-
page.
Jerry Ormsby 2/01/96
Carol did not have dialogue with Jerry regarding this
topic as he was busy when she approached his work area.
Bob Reeves 2/01/96
Carol did not have dialogue with Bob regarding this
topic as he was busy when she approached his work area.
Ann Marie DiGuiseppe 2/01/96
Carol did not confront Ann Marie 1/31/96 as she com-
pletes her shift at 1600 and when home.
Dale Aldrich 2/01/96
Carol did not confront Dale on 1/31/96 as he com-
pletes his shift at 1600. Carol did have dialogue with Dale
on 2/01/96 regarding RTC possible work stoppage.”

After speaking with the NOC employees, Kane met with
Kathy Schlotzer, Eaton’s immediate supervisor, and another
supervisor, Sandra Tarrant, to discuss Eaton’s activities. Dur-
ing this meeting Kane informed Schlotzer and Tarrant that he
was very concerned with the threatening notations in the mes-
sage sent to CSC employees and with Eaton’s asking the NOC
employees not to interact with the telephone company.
Subsequent to their meeting, Kane, Schlotzer, and Tarrant
met with Eaton. During this meeting Kane read Eaton the exact
text of the computer messages and asked her whether she had in
fact sent them. Eaton confirmed that she had. Kane then asked
Eaton whether she had approached NOC employees and asked
them not to dispatch Rochester Telephone. Eaton admitted that
she had approached employees and Kane remembers her agree-

7 This note reads: “After having received a network message from
Carol Eaton regarding the RTC strike, Carol Eaton came over to the
NOC and said that we should be nice to RTC and not dispatch any
problems to them since they were going on strike. I told Carol that we
had a business to run and if there were circuit problems I would call
them into whomever was responsible whether they were on strike or
not.”
8 Employee Dale Aldrich told Kane that Eaton had approached him
and discussed the possible strike at Rochester Telephone. However,
Kane could not recall at the time of the hearing whether Aldrich had
told him that Eaton specifically asked him not to dispatch Rochester
Telephone. Alrich likewise could not remember whether Eaton made
this specific request.
ing that she had asked them not to dispatch RTC. Kane re-
membered that later in the meeting Eaton denied that she had
done anything wrong, stating that she was just sharing informa-
tion. Kane then excused Eaton. According to Eaton she was
shocked to find that she had offended or threatened anyone and
asked if she could apologize to her coworkers. Kane said no.
She denied to Kane ever asking anyone not to do their job. In
her testimony Eaton testified that she had not meant to threaten
anyone by her warning of the consequences of crossing a union
picket line. She testified that she was just sharing information
of possible dangers of crossing picket lines based on her ex-
perience gained during a previous strike between RTC and the
Union. I find this explanation improbable. The only way an
EDS employee would cross an RTC picket line, if one actually
went up, would be to visit the phone company as a phone cus-
tomer. In the previous strike, the only persons who were sub-
ject to any abuse were RTC employees who crossed the picket
line. On the other hand, consistent with her request of NOC
employees not to dispatch RTC, Eaton’s threat could mean that
CSC employees were not to do business with RTC without
running the risk of adverse consequences. Certainly the word-
ing of the message to the CSC employees is threatening in na-
ture, regardless of its intention.
Thereafter, Kane informed Schlotzer and Tarrant that he felt
that he had grounds for termination. Thus, Eaton was called
back into the meeting, and Kane told her that she was being
terminated for making threats to her fellow employees and for
asking her fellow employees not to interact with Rochester
Telephone. Kane testified that Eaton was terminated because
of threatening connotations of the message to CSC employees
and because she asked NOC employees not to interact with
Rochester Telephone. Following the termination meeting,
Kane prepared documentation of the termination, listing as the
reason for termination: “Violation of EDS Policies and/or Phi-
losophies.” Specifically, Kane noted in his letter to his man-
ager, Andy Johnson, that Eaton was terminated for soliciting
her fellow employees’ support for a work stoppage at Rochester
Telephone by asking “that they limit their interactions with
RTC for resolving Xerox/EDS network outages” and for send-
ing a message that “conveyed language that indicated physical
threats to anyone crossing RTC picket lines.”9
C. Conclusions
I believe, and find, that Respondent terminated Eaton for the
exact reasons articulated by Kane in the documentation sur-
rounding her termination. That is, for sending a message to
CSC employees that management considered threatening in
violation of EDS policy against workplace violence, and for
soliciting NOC employees to not dispatch calls to EDS vendor,
Rochester Telephone Company.
Section 7 of the Act provides that “[e]mployees shall have
the right . . . to engage in . . . concerted activities for the pur-
pose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection.”
9 About 2 days before she sent the involved messages, Eaton had re-
ceived a copy of the Company’s policy on violence in the workplace.
This policy specifically states that “EDS will not tolerate any threat,
direct or implied . . . which harasses, disrupts, or interferes with an-
other’s work performance, or which creates an intimidating, offensive
or hostile environment.” In addition, the policy specifically states that
“EDS employees who violate this policy may be subject to discipline,
termination of employment, civil or criminal charges, or any combina-
tion thereof.”
ELECTRONIC DATA SYSTEMS CORP. 347
In the instant case, I do not believe that the activity that resulted
in Eaton’s termination was protected concerted activity. Gen-
erally, to be protected, employee activity must be “concerted,”
that is, undertaken together by two or more employees, or by
one on behalf of others. The Board has found that a conversa-
tion, although it involves only a speaker and a listener, may
constitute concerted activity if it has some relation to group
action in the interests of employees. In the instant case, Eaton
clearly acted alone and not in concert with any other employee
of EDS. Further, I am at a loss to understand how Eaton’s ac-
tions for which she was terminated bore any legitimate relation-
ship to the interests of employees, either her fellow EDS em-
ployees or the unionized employees of RTC. Kane admitted
that the mere sending of the message to NOC employees in-
forming them of an impending strike at RTC and asking for
support for the Union would not have caused her termination.
It was Eaton’s subsequent conversations with NOC employees
where her vision of support for the Union meant limiting or
ceasing doing business with RTC that gave the Employer con-
cern. Similarly, it was not the informational portion of the
message sent to CSC employees that caused the Employer a
problem, it was the threat contained in the message that resulted
in action against Eaton.
As noted earlier, the involved EDS facility is not represented
by a union. Thus, Eaton’s message could have nothing to do
with collective bargaining. Eaton’s threatening message and
her conversations with NOC employees do not involve any-
thing that would amount to group action in the interest of em-
ployees. As noted by Eaton herself, limiting interaction with
RTC would not benefit EDS employees and would not benefit
RTC employees represented by the Union. Her threat to the
CSC employees certainly promotes no legitimate interest of
EDS employees, and contrary to the position of the General
Counsel, I do not find this portion of the message merely in-
formational. I therefore find that the activity engaged in by
Eaton and for which she was terminated was not concerted and
not protected by Section 7 of the Act. Meyers Industries
(Meyers I), 268 NLRB 493 (1984), and Meyers Industries
(Meyers II), 281 NLRB 882 (1986).
Even in the event that the Board would find that Eaton’s
conversations with the NOC employees and the entire message
sent to the CSC employees does constitute concerted activity, it
is well settled that “[n]ot all concerted activity is protected.”
Washington Adventist Hospital, 291 NLRB 95, 102 (1988).
Improper conduct—such as disrupting an employer’s opera-
tions, threatening fellow employees, engaging in actions harm-
ful to an employer’s business, or deliberately defying company
work rules—falls outside the protection of the act in this regard,
I agree with Respondent that requesting fellow employees not
to do their job is not protected activity nor is sending messages
which threaten employees protected concerted activity.
I have found that Eaton specifically solicited the NOC em-
ployees to limit their dispatching of calls to RTC. This action
is a direct request not to do an important portion of their job. If
they had followed her direction, it could have significantly and
adversely impacted EDS relationship with its contractual cus-
tomer, Xerox. An employee loses the protection of Section 7 of
the Act if he or she engages in activities tending to injure or
disparage her employer’s business. Jefferson Standard Broad-
casting Co., 94 NLRB 1507 (1951), enfd. sub nom. NLRB v.
Electrical Workers IBEW Local 1229, 346 U.S. 464 (1953). As
the Supreme Court noted, an employee “cannot collect wages
for his employment, and, at the same time, engage in activities
to injure or destroy his employer’s business.” Id. at 476 fn. 12.
(Citations omitted.) Based on the cases cited, I find that
Eaton’s solicitation of NOC employees do not interact or dis-
patch RTC is not protected by the Act.
I have also found that a portion of the message sent to the
CSC employees contains a threat of unspecified reprisal as a
consequence of crossing the union’s picket lines. My reading
of this threat would certainly include bodily harm as one such
consequence. At least one employee, Kathleen Enck, found
this message threatening and disturbing. I believe it clearly
may reasonably tend to coerce or intimidate employees in the
exercise of rights protected under the Act. One of those rights
would be the right to cross a picket line. See Clear Pine
Mouldings, 268 NLRB 1044, 1046 (1984); Carpenters (Reeves,
Inc.), 281 NLRB 493, 498 (1986). In line with the Board’s
holding in the two cited cases, I find that the threatening por-
tion of the message Eaton sent to CSC employees is not pro-
tected by the Act. Thus, Respondent did not unlawfully disci-
pline Eaton for violation of its policy against workplace vio-
lence, which the message clearly violated.10
I do not find that any other activity engaged in by Eaton mo-
tivated her discharge nor do I find that union animus played any
part in her discharge. Virtually all documentation in this record
as well as the testimony reflects that at all times, management
was concerned with the two aspects of Eaton’s activity which
formed the basis for her discharge, the threat in the CSC mes-
sage and the solicitation of a partial work stoppage by the NOC
employees. Having found the activity for which Eaton was
discharged not protected, and as such conduct was in violation
of company policies, Respondent’s act of discharging Eaton
was not in violation of the Act.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Respondent, Electronic Data Systems Corporation, is
an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Sec-
tion 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
2. The Union, Communications Workers of America, Local
1170 is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5)
of the Act.
3. The Respondent did not engage in conduct in violation of
the Act as alleged in the complaint.
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on the
entire record, I issue the following recommended11
ORDER
The complaint is dismissed.

10 Whether one agrees with the degree of discipline assessed against
Eaton is not the question. That is a matter within the discretion of the
Employer.
11 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the
Board’s Rules and Regulations, the findings, conclusions, and recom-
mended Order shall, as provided in Sec. 102.48 of the Rules, be
adopted by the Board and all objections to them shall be deemed
waived for all purposes.