Southwestern Bell Telephone Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 1, 1972

200 N.L.R.B. 667 (N.L.R.B. 1972)

SOUTHWESTERN BELL TELEPHONE CO 667
Southwestern Bell Telephone Company and Commum-
cations Workers of America, AFL-CIO Case
14-CA-6595
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
I THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT, THE LABOR
ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
December 1, 1972
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS
KENNEDY AND PENELLO
On July 11, 1972, Administrative Law Judge'
Samuel M Singer issued the attached Decision in
this proceeding Thereafter, the General Counsel and
the Charging Party filed exceptions and supporting
briefs Respondent filed a memorandum in opposi-
tion to the Charging Party's exceptions and a brief in
opposition to the General Counsel's exceptions
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
1 The title of Trial Examiner was changed to Administrative Law
Judge effective August 19, 1972
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
SAMUEL M SINGER, Trial Examiner This proceeding
was heard before me in St Louis, Missouri, on April 10
and 11, 1972, pursuant to a charge filed on December 17,
1971, and complaint issued on February 4, 1972 The
complaint alleges that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1)
and (3) of the National Labor Relations Act primarily
because it directed employees to leave its premises unless
they removed or ceased displaying sweatshirts containing a
slogan deemed objectionable by Respondent All parties
appeared and were afforded full opportunity to be heard
and to examine and cross-examine witnesses Briefs were
received from all by May 17, 1972 Upon the entire record i
and my observation of the testimonial demeanor of the
witnesses, I make the following
1 Transcript corrected by my order on notice dated June 12 1972
2 Unless otherwise indicated, all dates are 1971
Southwestern Bell Telephone Company (the "Compa-
ny") is a Missouri corporation with its principal office and
place of business in St Louis, Missouri, furnishing
telephone communication service During the past 12
months, a representative period, it derived from that
business revenues in excess of $500,000, and purchased
and received from sellers in other States products valued in
excess of $50,000 I find that it is an employer engaged in
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7)
of the Act
Communication Workers Of America, AFL-CIO (the
"Union"), is a labor organization within the meaning of
Section 2(5) of the Act
II THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A The Facts
1 The employees involved, contractual relations
The salient facts are substantially undisputed Respon-
dent is a wholly owned subsidiary of American Telephone
and Telegraph Company (AT&T), which is often referred
to as "Ma Bell " It has had longstanding contractual
relations with the Union (the "International"), which since
1947 has represented plant employees at its various
facilities in a five-State area, including the three facilities
here involved in the St Louis, metropolitan area (Mission,
Parkview, and Bridgeton Exchanges) General Plant
Manager Barron has overall supervision over the 600
management and 3,000 nonmanagement employees in that
area The Missouri Exchange employs 35 bargaining unit
employees and 10 supervisors, Parkview 315 unit employ-
ees and 27 supervisors, and Bridgeton 50 unit employees
and 5 supervisors
The 23 employees here directly involved (18 at Missouri,
2 at Parkview, and 3 at Bridgeton) were classified as
switchmen or framemen, working inside Respondent's
facilities with no direct customer contact However, during
the times here material employees of outside contractors
were also on the scene, building additions for Respondent
or its affiliate Western Electric (another wholly owned
subsidiary of AT&T)
On June 22,2 Respondent and the Union commenced
bargaining negotiations to replace their collective agree-
ment expiring July 17 They ultimately reached agreement
on July 20, after a 7-day (July 14-20) strike, subject to
employee ratification in August The employees returned
to work on July 21
2 The "Cheap Mother" shirts worn by
employees, management's reaction
It was stipulated that on June 23, the second day of the
negotiations, the parties "were apart on many substantive
areas, including wages " It was also stipulated that on that
200 NLRB No 101
668 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
day (June 23), employees at Respondent's Missouri
Exchange appeared at work wearing sweatshirts with the
slogan, "Ma Bell is a Cheap Mother", 3 that later that day
two employees wore the same shirts at the Parkview
Exchange, and that three others wore them at Bridgeton
on July 21 (after the collective agreement had been signed
and the strike was ended) It was further stipulated that
"the phrase `Ma Bell is a Cheap Mother' is capable of more
than a single interpretation to some people, including some
union members, other employees, management and the
public " Although George, chief steward of the Union's
local at the Mission Exchange (Local 6306), first dis-
claimed knowledge that the phrase could be "controver-
sial," he later admitted that he had heard it used in a
"harassing or an insulting" manner and "guess[ed]" that
others might ascribe to it an offensive connotation
Employee Hartsook conceded that he had heard the word
"mother" joined with another word to create the obscenity,
"Mother F-", and that he was aware of this prior to June
23, when he first wore his "Cheap Mother" sweatshirt
However, he also testified that this and similar phrases
were "commonly" used among males, especially in the
Armed Forces McKay, the steward of the Union's local at
Bridgeton (Local 6310), similarly admitted that he had
heard people refer to others in a "derisive or insulting way"
when they used the word "mother," indicating that he was
aware that the slogan "Ma Bell is a Cheap Mother" could
have a "double meaning "
Management representatives testified that they regarded
the slogan on the sweatshirt as obscene and offensive,
although they, too, admitted that the "Cheap Mother"
slogan could carry a "double connotation " According to
Plant Manager Barron, "this was nothing more than
thumbing your nose at the company and manage-
ment," designed "to provoke the supervisors, trying to
taunt them, and needle them " Mission Exchange Supervi-
sor Houston's "immediate reaction" was that the language
on the sweatshirts was "vulgar and in poor taste" and that
.,it was dust a verbal slap in the face" to him personally as
part of management, "purposely to provoke us " Bridgeton
Exchange Supervisor Tremain regarded the wording on the
shirts as "an indirect insult towards immediate supervision,
the Bell system as a whole" and as "a deliberate attempt
to provoke a supervisor into an incident " Parkview
Equipment Chief Grah described the reaction of one of his
subordinate supervisors (Tebau) as "worked up" and so
overwrought as to require restraining the subordinate from
saying "something that he shouldn't have " According to
Supervisor Houston, rank-and-file employees, as well as
supervisors , had told him that the phrase on the sweatshirts
was "in very poor taste and vulgar "4 Supervisors Houston
and Tremain conceded that they had previously used or
heard others use comparable expressions , including the
four letter word "f-," to give vent to strong feeling
3 Respondent 's direction that the employees
refrain from displaying the "objectionable" "Cheap
Mother" slogan at work, the employees' brief
walkout
General Plant Manager Barron testified credibly that
after learning that employees were wearing, or going to
wear, the "Cheap Mother" sweatshirt, he told his supervi-
sors to direct the wearers to cover up the objectionable
inscription, or to turn the shirts "wrong side out"-or else
leave company premises Some of the supervisors conveyed
this message to other supervisors working under them
According to Barron, he established this policy to avoid "a
furor between the craft and management folks" at the very
outset, bearing in mind that contract negotiations had just
begun and "emotions are always running high " at such
time It was stipulated that on June 23, when the employees
began wearing these shirts, Respondent 's supervisors in
fact told the employees named in the complaint (18 at
Mission and 2 at Parkview) that they had the option of
either removing, reversing, or covering up the "Ma Bell is a
Cheap Mother" inscription or leaving Respondent's
premises until they did so, and that on July 21 the same
option was given to the 3 Bridgeton employees named in
the complaint At least one of these Bridgeton employees
(Burack), asking his supervisor (Tremain) whether this
meant he was "suspended," was told, "absolutely not, the
option is strictly yours "
It was further stipulated that all 23 employees exercised
the option of leaving the plant, that none were paid for the
time they took off work (ranging from 3-1/2 to 8 hours),
and that all returned the day after they left without
displaying the slogan, some by reversing their shirts 5 Plant
Manager Barron testified credibly and without contradic-
tion that on the day of the walkout at the Mission
Exchange (June 23), he and another company official
arranged to meet with Chief Steward George and with the
Local's president at that facility (Eagan) to discuss the
incident, that he emphasized to them that the men were
not "suspended" and could return to work when they
removed, reversed, or covered up the objectionable
emblem, and that Eagan agreed to persuade the men to
return to work on that basis, but reported back that he was
"not successful "
3 The slogan appeared on the front of the shirt which also bore a circle
with the Bell Telephone symbol, the other side bore the legend We Want
Big Potatoes in 71 -the figure 71 within a circle resembling the shape of
a potato The name of the Union did not appear
4 In a decision handed down on March 28 1972 (now pending before the
Board) Trial Examiner Welles found that the three charging parties in that
case also found the Cheap Mother slogan morally repugnant and
personally offensive (Case 23-CB-1212) The three employees members of
a CWA local not involved here had filed unfair labor practice charges after
they were warned of disciplinary action for refusing to wear the sweatshirts
Based on these charges, the General Counsel issued a complaint on the
theory that union members have a protected right even against internal
union discipline to refuse to follow a policy which they view (reasonaoly) as
morally repugnant and personally offensive Without deciding the issue
here-whether the wearing of the slogans constituted protected concerted
activity , Trial Examiner Welles concluded that the proviso to Section
8(b)(1)(A)-giving a union the right to prescribe its own rules with
respect to the acquisition or retention of membership therein'-immumzed
the respondent local s conduct He specifically stated, however I do not
decide whether wearing of the slogan here , or any slogan would be
protected concerted activity although the teaching of the Jefferson Standard
case (N L R B v Local Union No 1229 IBEW 346 U S 464) demonstrates
that there are lines to be drawn and that wearing of certain types of slogans
would not be protected against employer discipline
e There is evidence that after the walkout some equipment was damaged
but there was no way to tell if the employees were responsible therefor
SOUTHWESTERN BELL TELEPHONE CO 669
4 Dissemination of the "Cheap Mother" slogan,
the employees' free use of other emblems and
insignia
It was stipulated that the June 23 use of the "Cheap
Mother" slogan was the subject of comment in local news
media on and after June 23, 6 and that the shirts with the
slogans were worn by employees outside of Respondent's
premises during the strike (July 14-20) in course of the
picketing Although there is some testimony that the shirts
were worn prior to June 23, the parties stipulated that they
were first worn "around" that date According to employee
Hartsook, a General Counsel witness, the 18 employees at
the Mission Exchange got together and decided to wear the
"Cheap Mother" shirts on June 23, after buying them with
their own funds According to International Representa-
tive Mayer, the Union "did not encourage, nor
discourage" the wearing of these shirts and the Umon
disclaimed responsibility for their distribution, indicating
that the International had sponsored and distributed other
insignia such as the "big potato" buttons and automobile
stickers 7
It is undisputed that Respondent never prohibited
employees from wearing union insignia or slogans of any
kind other than the "Cheap Mother" slogan, that it had no
objections to the posting of slogans such as "Big Potatoes
in `71' " on its bulletin board, and that at least supervisors
here involved never previously disciplined employees for
union activity There is nothing in the collective agreement
between the parties regarding the use of slogans or insignia
In its publications, Respondent has encouraged employees
to wear sweatshirts bearing the Bell symbol and slogan,
"We May be the Only Telephone Company in
Town "
An article in the collective agreement dealing with
"responsible union and company relationship," states
"The Company and Union recognize that it is in the
interest of both parties that the Employees and the
Company and all dealing between them continue to be
characterized by mutual responsibility and respect "
B Analysis and Conclusions
1 Introduction, applicable legal principles
Section 7 of the Act guarantees to employees the right to
engage in "concerted activities for the purpose of collective
6 A June 24 editorial in a local newspaper referred to the incident as a
gag perpetrated by 18 [Mission] employees seeking higher wages Although
recognizing that the slogan was offensive the writer indicated that a
recent (unidentified) Supreme Court decision had upheld the right of an
individual to use such slogans in public observing that Ma Bell had
been called worse than cheap
7 Mayer and other union officials specifically assumed responsibility for
sponsoring and distributmg bumper stickers containing the slogan Ma Bell
is a Cheap Mother explaining that the Greater St Louis CWA City
Council (made up of eight locals including the ones servicing the three
facilities here involved) had voted to make them available to union
members At the opening of the hearing General Counsel moved to strike
portions of the complaint alleging violations based on company refusals to
permit employees to park their automobiles on company property unless
they removed the objectionable bumper stickers-on the ground that
pretrial investigation has revealed that the events occurred prior to
the Section 10(b) 6-month period le before June 17 1971 Without
claiming that the incident occurred within the critical period Charging
bargaining or other mutual aid or protection " However,
the courts and Board have recognized that not all acts done
in concert with other employees constitute protected
concerted activities Assuming a proper objective, there is
still "a further inquiry to determine whether [the employ-
ees'] concerted activities were carved on in such a manner
as to come within the protection of Section 7 " N L R B v
Local 1229, Electrical Workers (Jefferson Standard Broad-
casting Co), 346 U S 464, 475, and cases cited Concerted
activities may be so "indefensible" as to warrant the
employer disciplining, even discharging, the participants
Ibid, and N L R B v Washington Aluminum Co, 370 U S
9, 17 The ultimate question in each case calls for "an
adjustment between the undisputed right of self-organiza-
tion assured to employees and equally undisputed
right of employers to maintain discipline in their establish-
ments Like so many others, these rights are not unlimited
in the sense that they can be exercised without regard to
any duty which the existence of rights in others may place
upon employer or employee Opportunity to organize and
proper discipline are both essential elements in a balanced
society " Republic Aviation Corp v N L R B, 324 U S 793,
797-798
Contrary to Respondent's suggestion, the object of the
employees in wearing the "Cheap Mother" sweatshirts is
evident from the timing as well as the language employed
To be sure, there is no evidence that the 23 employees
specifically told management their "purpose" or "purpos-
es," but the fact that 20 of them first wore the shirts the day
after negotiations commenced when, as was stipulated, the
parties "were apart on many substantive areas including
wages," clearly evidences the objective-i e , intent to
support the employees' bargaining representative's position
in the negotiations Furthermore, neither before nor during
the hearing did Respondent plead ignorance as to the
object of the employees' conduct Nor is it material that the
Union had failed to sponsor this activity or that the
sweatshirts did not name it, since employees may act
concertedly for their "mutual aid or protection" (Section 7
of the Act) independently and without a union See Joanna
Cotton Mills Co v NLRB , 176 F 2d 749, 752 (C A 4),
N L R B v Schwartz, 146 F 2d 773, 774 (C A 5) Certainly,
the employees' conduct was in support, not in derogation,
of their bargaining representative See N L R B v R C
Cann Co, 328 F 2d 974, 979 (C A 5) The basic issue here,
and the one litigated in the hearing, is whether the slogans
Party opposed the motion because Respondent had failed to raise the issue
as an affirmative defense In overruling this objection and granting
General Counsels motion to strike I nevertheless allowed the parties to
adduce evidence relative to the bumper stickers for background" purposes
Following the testimony of General Counsel s witness McKay (an employee
and Local 6310 steward at Bridgeton ), General Counsel moved to reinstate
the bumper sticker complaint allegations on the ground that McKay s
testimony now showed that the bumper sticker incidents did take place after
the June 17 cutoff date Expressing doubt that the proof supported his
position, I reserved decision on the motion to reinstate General Counsel
later called several union officials in an attempt to buttress McKay s
testimony While I still have serious reservations that the testimony of these
officials and of McKay demonstrates that General Counsel has met his
burden of proving that the bumper sticker incidents occurred within the
statutory 6 month limitation period for the reasons hereafter stated in
connection with my treatment of the merits of the issue in regard to the
sweat shirts bearing the identical slogan it is unnecessary to pass upon the
Section 10(b) limitation issue
670 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
displayed on the sweatshirts were so offensive, obscene, or
obnoxious as to justify Respondent's requirement that the
employees remove or cover them, or else leave the
premises In other words, the basic issue is whether the
means employed by the men were "indefensible" in
carrying out a legitimate bargaining objective
It is well settled-and Respondent properly concedes-
that the right of employees to display union insignia at work
is a legitimate form of concerted or union activity See, e g ,
Republic Aviation Corp, supra, 384 U S at 801-803,
N L R B v Mayrath Co, 319 F 2d 424, 426-27 (C A 7)
However, as in other types of concerted action, including
union solicitation, considerations of production or disci-
pline may well justify an employer to limit or bar the
activity Thus, in Caterpillar Tractor Co v N L R B, 230
F 2d 357, 358-359 (C A 7), the court upheld an employer's
right to prohibit the wearing of of union badges or buttons
bearing the legend "Don't be a Scab" since use of the
controversial term "scab" could, according to the court,
have a "disruptive influence" on work and discipline The
same court, however, sanctioned the use of insignia dealing
with "passive inoffensive advertisement of organizational
aims and interests which in no way interfere[d] with
discipline or efficient production " N L R B v Mayrath
Co, 319 F 2d 424 Another court held that a temporary
ban upon the wearing of union buttons was legitimate in
order to avoid a "highly explosive" rival union "situation "
Boeing Airplane Co v N L R B, 217 F 2d 369, 374-375
(C A 4) In United Aircraft Corp, 134 NLRB 1632, the
Board similarly held that an employer could legitimately
prohibit employees from wearing certain pins because the
facts showed the employer's good-faith intent to achieve
harmonious plant conditions These and other decisions
reflect the general rule that when employee conduct
"exceeds the bounds of legitimate campaign propaganda
or is so disrespectful of the employer as seriously to impair
the maintenance of discipline," the discipline meted out to
the offending employee, even in the drastic form of
discharge, does not constitute an unfair labor practice
NLRB v Blue Bell, Inc, 219 F 2d 796, 798 (C A 5) "An
employee, by engaging in concerted activity, does not
acquire a general or unqualified right to use disrespectful
epithets toward or concerning his or her employer " (Ibid)
See also Maryland Drydock Co v N L R B, 183 F 2d 538,
539 (C A 4), to the effect that distribution of literature on
Company premises "hold[ing] officers and supervising
officials up to ridicule and contempt, and which has a
necessary tendency to disrupt discipline in the plant," is
unprotected Accord Indiana Gear Works v N L R B, 371
F 2d 273 (C A 7)
2 The lawfulness of Respondent's conduct
As we have seen, here some 18 of Respondent's 35 unit
employees at the Mission Exchange and 2 of the 315 at
Parkview appeared at work on June 23, the day after
bargaining commenced, with sweatshirts containing the
slogan, "Ma Bell is a Cheap Mother", 3 of the 50
Bridgeton employees wore like shirts and slogans on July
21 (after a new collective agreement already was signed
subject to employee ratification), presumably because they
were dissatisfied with the terms of the signed agreement
Admittedly, the phrase in question was "capable of more
than a single interpretation"--one innocent and the other
obscene-in publicizing Bell Telephone's alleged niggardly
wage offer One of the three employee witnesses called by
General Counsel (Harksook) admitted that he had heard
the word "mother" joined with another word to create the
insulting and defaming phrase "Mother f-", and that he
was aware of this before he donned his sweatshirt The
second employee (George), also the Union's chief steward
at Mission, likewise admitted that the slogan on the shirt
could convey an offensive connotation and that he had
heard the word "mother" used in a "harassing or an
insulting" fashion The third witness (McKay, the Union's
steward at Bridgeton) testified to the same effect, admitting
that the expression could be used in a "derisive and
insulting way " And all four management officials called
by Respondent testified that they considered the slogan on
the sweatshirts as vulgar and profane, as directed at them
and the Company, and as designed to taunt them and
provoke incidents Under the circumstances it is no answer
that the employees did not in fact intend the derogatory
and insulting connotation placed upon the slogan by
management In view of the controversial nature of the
language used and its admitted susceptibility to derisive
and profane construction, Respondent could legitimately
ban the use of the provocative slogan as a reasonable
precaution against discord and bitterness between employ-
ees and management, as well as to assure decorum and
discipline in the plant 8 "[T]he Taft-Hartley Act seeks to
strengthen, rather than weaken, that cooperation, continui-
ty of service and cordial contractual relation between
employer and employee that is born of loyalty to their
common enterprise " Local Union No 1229 (Jefferson-
Standard Broadcasting), supra, 346 U S at 176 In any
event, even assuming that the wearers of the sweatshirts
did not intend the derogatory connotation, it is clear that
their subjective intent is not controlling It was they who
chose the phraseology and "their inarticulateness in the use
of specific words on the [sweatshirts] did not in any way
serve to lessen [Respondent's] legitimate concern over the
admittedly possible explosive nature of the ill chosen
words" (Caterpillar Tractor, supra, 230 F 2d at 359) 9
8 The record here indicates that rank and file employees as well as
supervisors looked upon the epithets with disfavor Moreover as noted
supra fn 4 employees at another facility of Respondent found the language
on the sweatshirts so repulsive as to defy their local s directive to wear the
shirts in the face of threatened union discipline
9 I reject Charging Party s suggestion at the hearing that the slogan
employed was only a skilled artful and humorous form of highlighting the
differences between Respondent and Union in the negotiations The short
answer to this contention is that humor to some may not necessarily be so to
others Certainly here management personnel (and even employees) took
the slogan not as humor but as an offensive and opprobrious epithet Nor
do I accept the suggestion that the employees language was privileged free
speech The protection of the National Labor Relations Act is not
coextensive with the protection accorded citizens under the constitution and
other laws The Act deals only with matters affecting the employer
employee relationship In any event freedom of speech does not preclude
an employer from stopping distribution on his premises of statements
SOUTHWESTERN BELL TELEPHONE CO 671
The instant case is distinguishable from others like
NLRB v Thor Power Tool Co, 351 F 2d 584, 586-87
(C A 7), Crown Central Petroleum Corp v N L R B, 430
F 2d 724 (C A 5), and Butcher Boy Refrigerator Door Co,
127 NLRB 1360, 1371-72, enfd 290 F 2d 22 (C A
7)-where single or isolated offensive remarks evoked in
tense grievance discussions have been held insufficient to
remove protection from the Act Also distinguishable are
cases where the objectionable conduct in pursuit of
appropriate collective ends were found trivial or reflected
merely "a moment of animal exuberance " N L R B v
Illinois Tool Works, 153 F 2d 811, 815-816 (C A 7), quoting
from Milk Wagon Drivers v Meadowmoor Dairies, Inc, 312
U S 287, 293 Here, the offensive language was worn on
shirts to be exposed to employees and management all
hours of the day The fact that supervisors themselves may
have occasionally used an obscene epithet to give vent to
strong feelings is a far cry from continuously displaying
what could admittedly be construed, and here were
construed, as obscenities directed at management during
the entire 7 or 8-hour workday In my view, Respondent
was not required to suffer such indignity and its mere
request to employees to refrain from using such slogans
during working hours or else leave Company premises was
a reasonable and protected management prerogative This
is not a case where an employer has taken or has
threatened to take reprisals against employees for merely
characterizing the employer as "cheap" or parsimonious
Absent the stipulation and uncontradicted evidence that
the "Cheap Mother" emblem used in this case could be
construed (and was construed) as obscene and offensive,
the result reached might well have been otherwise Nor is it
of any consequence that Respondent's instructions to
remove or cover the inflammatory phrase came before
actual disruption of discipline Respondent "was under no
compulsion to wait until resentment piled up and the storm
broke before it could suppress the threat of disruption by
exercising its right to enforce employee discipline "
(Caterpillar Tractor, supra, 230 F 2d at 359) See also United
Aircraft Corp, supra, 134 NLRB at 1635, Maryland
Drydock, supra, 183 F 2d at 542 Additionally, Respondent
was not obligated to attempt to dissipate the damaging
effect of the obnoxious slogan by resorting to counterprop-
aganda, as suggested by the Union, Cf N L R B v
Fansteel Metallurgical Corp, 306 U S 240, 254
which are defamatory and insulting and which tend to disrupt discipline
Maryland Drydock Co supra 183 F 2d at 542
10 Cf Edir, d/b/a Wofhe s 159 NLRB 686, 687, fn 2
11 In the event that no exceptions are filed as provided by Section 102 46
of the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board the
In reaching the conclusion that Respondent's conduct
was legitimately motivated in order to maintain discipline
and harmonious employee-management relations-and
not to thwart protected concerted or union activity as
claimed by General Counsel and Charging Party-I am
fortified by the circumstances that there is no indication
that Respondent is an antiumon employer, that, on the
contrary, insofar as appears, it has had 25 years of
harmonious contractual relations with the Union, that
there is no evidence of an atmosphere of union hostility
pervading enforcement of the rule against wearing the
"Cheap Mother" shirts, that Respondent extended to all
who wore such shirts the option to remove or cover up the
objectionable emblem and to return to work without
penalty, that even those who defied its request were neither
discharged or disciplined, except to the extent that they
were docked for wages lost for the hours they elected to
absent themselves,10 and that the employees could, and
without company objection did, use other insignia to
publicize their bargaining demands
I conclude that Respondent's requests that the employ-
ees remove, reverse, or cover up the "Cheap Mother"
slogan on their sweatshirts or leave its premises were
unrelated to opposition to protected concerted or union
activity I find that these requests to remove offending
slogans from their workplace constituted reasonable and
necessary steps in maintaining discipline and harmonious
employee-employer relations in operating Respondent's
business Accordingly, I conclude that General Counsel
has not met the burden (which is his) of establishing that
Respondent's conduct was violative of Section 8(a)(1) or
(3) of the Act
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Respondent Southwestern Bell Telephone Company has
not violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act as alleged in
the complaint
RECOMMENDED ORDER ii
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings and conclusions
and upon the entire record in the case, it is ordered that the
complaint be and it is hereby dismissed
findings conclusions and Recommended Order herein shall as provided in
Section 102 48 of the Rules and Regulations, be adopted by the Board and
become its findings conclusions and Order and objections thereto shall be
deemed waived for all purposes