The Chesapeake and Potomac Telephone Co. of West Virginia

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 9, 1952

98 N.L.R.B. 1122 (N.L.R.B. 1952)

1122 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
WE WILL NOT discourage membership in FRUIT AND PRODUCE DRIVERS, WARE-
HOUSEMEN AND EMPLOYEES UNION, LocAL No. 630, INTERNATIONAL BROTHER-
HOOD or TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS OF AMERICA,
A. F. OF L., or in any other labor organization of our employees, by refusing
to reinstate any of our employees or discriminating in any other manner in
regard to their hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of
their employment.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our
employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form labor
organizations, to join or assist FRUIT AND PRODUCE DRIVERS, WAREHOUSEMEN
AND EMPLOYEES UNION, LOCAL No. 630, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF
TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS OF AMERICA, A. F. or
L., or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through represent-
atives of their own choosing, or to engage in concerted activities for the pur-
pose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain
from any or all of such activities, except to the extent that such right may
be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization
as authorized in Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
WE WILL offer to Pearl Stonebrook immediate and full reinstatement to
her former or a substantially equivalent position without prejudice to any
seniority or other rights and privileges previously enjoyed, and make her
whole for any loss of pay suffered as a result of our discrimination against
her.
All our employees are free to become or remain, or to refrain from becoming or
remaining, members in good standing of the above-named union or any other
labor organization except to the extent that this right may be affected by an
agreement in conformity with Section 8 (a) (3) of the National Labor Relations
Act.
NORTH WHITTIER HEIGHTS CITRUS ASSOCIATION,
Employer.
Dated-------------- By-------------------------------------------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof, and must not
be altered , defaced, or covered by any other material.
THE CHESAPEAKE AND POTOMAC TELEPHONE COMPANY OF WEST
VIRGINIA and Lois PATTY. Case No. 6-CA-307. April 9, 1962
Decision and Order
On August 15, 1951, Trial Examiner Lee J. Best issued his Inter-
mediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the
Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor
practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and
take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Inter-
mediate Report attached hereto. The Trial Examiner also found that
the Respondent had not engaged in certain other alleged unfair labor
practices, and recommended that the complaint be dismissed with re-
spect to such allegations. Thereafter, the Respondent, the General
98 NLRB No. 168.
THE CHESAPEAKE AND POTOMAC TELEPHONE COMPANY 1123
Counsel, and the charging party filed exceptions to the Intermediate
Report and supporting briefs, and the Respondent also filed a brief
in support of that portion of the Intermediate Report recommending
dismissal of the complaint.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner and
finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby
affirmed. The Board has considered the Intermediate Report, the
exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in this case,2 and hereby
adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial
Examiner, with the following additions and modifications.
1. We agree with the Trial Examiner that the Respondent violated
Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act by the following conduct: (a) The entire
conversation of February 1, 1950, between Chief Operator Harrick
and operators Zaladyziejewski and Zagula, in which interrogation
concerning union membership and activity was coupled with a thinly
veiled threat of reprisal; and (b) in soliciting, procuring, and en-
couraging resignations from the Union.
In finding that the conduct under (b) violated the Act, we rely
not only on Chief Operator Harrick's authorization and knowledge
thereof, and responsibility therefor, as found by the Trial Examiner,
but also upon the fact that by such conduct the Respondent accorded
disparate treatment to prounion and antiunion solicitation. The
record establishes that the Respondent had promulgated a rule pro-
hibiting union solicitation during working periods or in spaces where
the Respondent's operations or administrative work was being per-
formed. This rule was rigidly enforced, even to the extent, as dis-
cussed hereinafter, that Harrick had operator Patty's home telephone
tapped in an effort to determine whether Patty was soliciting other
operators by telephone while the latter were on duty. In contrast, the
record clearly establishes that, with the knowledge and approval of
Chief Operator Harrick,3 the resignations involved herein were not
only solicited or procured in the central office, but also while the em-
ployees involved were on duty. Such a disparate application of a no-
solicitation rule clearly violates the Act.4
The Respondent contends, nevertheless, that no cease and desist
order is warranted in this proceeding, on the grounds (1) that the
' Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act , the Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this case to a three -member panel [ Chairman Herzog and
Members Houston and Styles].
2 The requests of the charging party and the Respondent for oral argument are hereby
denied as the record and the exceptions and briefs , in our opinion, adequately present the
issues and the positions of the parties.
3 In finding that Harrick had knowledge of the service assistants ' activities in soliciting
resignations from the Union , we rely not only on the credited testimony of operator
McElwain, as set forth in the Intermediate Report, but also upon the physical character-
istics of the central office and Harrick's testimony that she was fully aware of everything
that occurred in that office.
4 Bonwit Teller, Inc., 96 NLRB 608; Editorial "El Imparcial" Inc., 92 NLRB 1795. 1796.
1124 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
violations found herein were merely isolated events, and (2) that its
neutrality policy which, as found by the Trial Examiner, was brought
to the attention of the operators at the time they were employed,
relieves it of any liability for Harrick's conduct. We find no merit
in this contention. The conduct involved herein affected a number
of employees, and constituted more than a single act of interference,
restraint, or coercion. It cannot therefore be said that such conduct
was in fact isolated.5 With respect to the Respondent's neutrality
policy, the Board has held that, under certain circumstances, an
employer may be absolved of liability for coercive statements made
by its supervisors in violation of the employer's announced policy
of neutrality. Such circumstances have, however, included some-
thing more than the mere publication of a statement directed solely
to the employees 6 And when, as here, a respondent's supervisors
have engaged in conduct which is violative of the Act, the Board has
held, with court approval, that the mere prior promulgation of a
neutrality statement, which does not specifically repudiate such
conduct, is insufficient to relieve that respondent of liability therefor.,
Such a specific repudiation is all the more necessary in a situation
such as is present in this case; for here the employees concerned
worked at a place distant from the Respondent's main office, and the
highest ranking supervisor on the spot had not hesitated to make
known her opposition to the employees' union activity. As the
court of appeals said in the Birmingham Post case : 8
It is firmly established that [an employer's] duty under the act
is not to give mere lip service to it with proclamations and
instructions, but to use its authority to make its policy effective,
and that if proscribed practices are carried on by supervisory
employees so that the employer gains any advantage or the
employees are put at a disadvantage in respect of the matter
covered by the act, it is within the power of the Board to prevent
repetition of such activities and to remove their 'consequences
upon the employees' rights of self-organization, as fully where
they are not as where they are employer directed. Contrary
to the petitioner's contention, the controlling consideration in
a case of this kind is not moral culpability of the employer, nor
is it one of conventional representation of the master by the
employee. It is whether employees have been subjected to pro-
5 See, e. g., I. B. S. Manufacturing Company, et al., 96 NLRB 1263.
See, e. g, Beatrice Foods Company, 84 NLRB 493 , 494; Houston Shipbuilding Corp.,
56 NLRB 1684.
7 Birmingham Post Company v. N. L. R B , 140 F. 2d 638 ( C, A. 5 ) ; The Cincinnati
Steel Castings Company, 86 NLRB 592 , 596; Jaques Power Saw Company, 85 NLRB
440, 450, 468.
8 Footnote 7, supra, at p. 640.
THE CHESAPEAKE AND POTOMAC TELEPHONES COMPANY 1125
hibited compulsions flowing from the employer's economic power
which the employer could and should have prevented the use of.
Accordingly, under all the circumstances of the case, we find that
the Respondent is liable for Harrick's conduct, and that the order
provided for hereinafter will effectuate the policies of the Act.
2. We also agree with the ' Trial Examiner that the remaining
allegations of the complaint that the Respondent violated Section
8 (a) (1) of the Act, should be dismissed. However, we do not in
all cases agree with the Trial Examiner's reasons for reaching that
conclusion.
(a) With respect to Harrick's statements to the operators, on
October 5, 1949, that the Union was not responsible for Patty' s rein-
statement, we base our dismissal solely on the fact that the incident
occurred more than 6 months before the filing of the initial charge
in this proceeding.9 Accordingly, we do not pass on the merits of
this allegation.
(b) No exceptions have been taken to the Trial Examiner's recom-
mended dismissal of the allegation based on Harrick's alleged refusal
to permit operators Fox and Mentzer to exchange shifts. Accord-
ingly, we adopt this recommendation without further comment.
(c) We adopt the Trial Examiner's finding that the Respondent
did not unlawfully prohibit prounion solicitation on company prem-
ises, but solely for the reason that the record fails to establish, by
a preponderance of the evidence, that Harrick in fact prevented, or
attempted to prevent, Patty from engaging in such solicitation during
her nonworking time.
(d) We agree with the Trial Examiner that the Respondent did
not engage in unlawful surveillance of the union activity in which
Patty engaged in the women's lounge.
(e) The General Counsel contends that the Respondent engaged
in unlawful surveillance by causing a tap to be placed on Patty's
home telephone line for about 11 hours on February 16, 1950. The
Trial Examiner rejected this contention on the ground that this kind
9 The initial charge was filed on May 9 , 1950, and not on May 1 , 1950 , as inadvertently
stated in the Intermediate Report. This charge alleged that the Respondent had violated
Section 8 (a) (1) and ( 3) of the Act by discharging Patty, and by interfering with,
restraining, and coercing Patty in the exercise of her rights to assist the Union, The
first amended charge, filed more than 6 months after the actions alleged as violations of the
Act, alleged in addition that by substantially the same actions as were encompassed within
the original charge, the Respondent interfered with, restrained , and coerced its employees
in the exercise of their rights under the Act. For the reasons stated in Cathey Lumber
Company, 86 NLRB 157, enf 185 F. 2d 1021 ( C. A. 5), set aside on other grounds, 189 F.
2d 428 ( C. A. 5), we find that , except for the one allegation noted in the text, the allega-
tions of the complaint , that the Respondent violated Section 8 ( a) (1) of the Act with
respect to employees other than Patty, are supported by a timely charge , and that the
Respondent 's contentions to the contrary are nithout merit See also Kansas Milling
Company v . N. L. R. B ., 185 F. 2d 413 ( C. A. 10 ) ; Paul Cusano et at. v. N. L. It. B,
190 F. 2d 898 (C. A. 3).
998666-vol 98--53--72
1126 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
of tapping device was customarily used to promote control of em-
ployees and equipment and increase efficiency. While we agree with
the Trial Examiner's ultimate conclusion, we do not adopt his
reasoning.
It seems plain from the record that the tapping of the home tele-
phone line of a subscriber-employee was not a technique normally
utilized by the Respondent for training and control purposes. In-
deed, the Respondent does not so claim, contending, rather, that the
tapping was done in this instance in order to ascertain whether Patty,
who was off duty on that day, was utilizing her telephone to solicit
other operators who were on duty, in violation of the Respondent's
valid no-solicitation rule. It is admitted that Chief Operator
Harrick knew that on that day Patty was conducting a day-long
membership drive at her home, and that a representative of the Union
would be present at her home throughout that day. Certain circum-
stances disclosed by the record cast serious doubt on the bona fides
of the Respondent's contention. On the other hand, the uncontra-
dicted testimony of Harrick indicates that the Respondent had reason
to believe that Patty was soliciting' operators on duty, and that it
had tried without success to ascertain from the operators themselves
whether this was true 10 Moreover, the record is devoid of any evi-
dence which would show that the Respondent did, in fact, utilize
the tap for purposes other than that which it states to have motivated
it. The most that can be said is that it may have had an opportunity
to do so. Accordingly, while the matter is not free from doubt, we
conclude that the General Counsel has failed to establish by a pre-
ponderance of the evidence that in installing the tap in question the
Respondent was motivated by an unlawful purpose or, in fact, used
it for such purpose.
3. For the reasons stated in the Intermediate Report, we agree
that Patty's discharge did not violate Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
Order
Upon the entire record in this case, and pursuant to Section 10 (c)
of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board hereby orders that the Respondent, The Chesapeake
and Potomac Telephone Company of West Virginia, Weirton, West
Virginia, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Interrogating its employees concerning their union activities,
affiliation, or sympathies, threatening its employees with reprisals
10 While the Respondent could also have accomplished its asserted purpose by using
the turret monitor in the office the record shows , among other things, that this device was
not connected to five or six of the positions on the switchboard.
THE CHESAPEAKE AND POTOMAC TELEPHONE COMPANY 1127
if they engage in union activity, and soliciting, procuring, or encour-
aging the resignations of its employees from membership in the Union.
(b) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining,
or coercing its employees in the exercise of their right to self -organ-
ization, to form labor organizations, to join or assist West Virginia
Division No. 9, Communications Workers of America, CIO, or any
other labor organization, to bargain collectively through representa-
tives of their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted activi-
ties for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or
protection, or to refrain-from any or all of such activities, except
to the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement re-
quiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of employ-
ment, as authorized in Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action, which the Board finds
will effectuate the purposes of the Act :
(a) Post at its telephone exchange in Weirton, West Virginia, copies
of the notice attached hereto and marked "Appendix A." n Copies of
said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Sixth
Region, shall, after being duly signed by the Respondent, be posted by
the Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and maintained by
it for a period of sixty (60) consecutive days thereafter in conspicuous
places including all places where notices to employees are customar-
ily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to
insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any
other material.
(b) Notify the Regional Director for the Sixth Region, in writing,
within ten (10) days from the date of this Order what steps the Re-
spondent has taken to comply herewith.
IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED that except as otherwise found herein,
the complaint be, and it hereby is, dismissed.
Appendix A
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to a Decision and Order of the National Labor Relations
Board , and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, we hereby notify our employees that :
WE WILL NOT interrogate our employees concerning their union
membership , activities , sympathies, or affiliations , threaten our
employees with reprisals if they engage in union activity, or so-
licit , procure, 'or encourage the resignations of our employees
"In the event that this Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of
Appeals, there shall be substituted for the words "Pursuant to a Decision and Order" the
words "Pursuant to a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals, Enforcing an -Order."
1128 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
from membership in WEST VIRGINIA DIVISION No. 9, COMMUNI-
CATIONS WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO, or any other labor organi-
zation of our employees.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, re-
strain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of their right to
self-organization, to form labor organizations, to join or assist
WEST VIRGINIA DIVISION No. 9, COMMUNICATIONS WORKERS OF
AMERICA, CIO, or any other labor organization, to bargain col-
lectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to
engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bar-
gaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any
or all such activities, except to the extent that such right may be
affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organ-
ization as a condition of employment as authorized by Section
8 (a) (3) of the Act.
All our employees are free to become, remain, or refrain from be-
coming or remaining members of the above-named union or any other
labor organization, except to the extent that such right may be affected
by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a
condition of employment as authorized by Section 8 (a) (3) of the
Act.
THE CHESAPEAKE AND POTOMAC TELEPHONE
COMPANY OF WEST VIRGINIA,
Employer.
Dated - ---- By ---------------------------------------------
(Representative) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof,
and must not be altered , defaced, or covered by any other material.
Intermediate Report
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a charge filed on May 1, 1950, and a first amended charge filed on April
9, 1951, by Lois Patty, an individual, herein called the Charging Party, the
General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board, by the Regional Director
for the Sixth Region (Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania), issued a complaint dated
April 11, 1951, against The Chesapeake and Potomac Telephone Company of
West Virginia, herein called the Respondent, alleging that the Respondent had
engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce with-
in the meaning of Sections 8 (a) (1) and (3) and 2 (6) and (7) of the National
Labor Relations Act, as amended, 61 Stat. 136, herein called the Act. Copies
of the charge, the complaint, and notice of hearing thereon were duly served
upon the Respondent. A motion by the Respondent to, strike paragraphs 4 and
7 of the complaint was denied. A motion by the General Counsel to strike por-
tions of paragraph 9 of the Respondent's answer was also denied. Upon denial
of the motions to strike, both the General Counsel and the Respondent were
requested to file a more particular statement to clarify the allegations contained
in paragraph 4 of the complaint and paragraph 9 of the answer.
THE CHESAPEAKE AND POTOMAC TELEPHONE COMPANY 1129
With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint alleges in substance
that the Respondent interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in
the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act by statements,
expressions , and inquiries concerning the concerted activities, affiliations, and
membership of employees in the Union for the purpose of discouraging self-
organization in the interest of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or
protection; solicitation of resignations from West Virginia Division No. 9, Com-
munications Workers of America, CIO, herein called the Union ; and by pro-
hibiting solicitation of union membership on its premises during nonworking
time. It is further alleged that on or about February 20, 1950, the Respondent
discriminatorily discharged and refused to reinstate Lois Patty because of her
union activities and to discourage membership in a labor organization.
At the hearing the General Counsel was permitted to amend the complaint
by adding subparagraph (e) of paragraph 4, alleging that the Respondent en-
gaged in unlawful surveillance of the concerted activities of its employees from
February 16 to 20, 1950, inclusive, by telephonic and personal observations. The
Respondent was allowed to amend its answer by denying the new allegation.
In its answer the Respondent admitted all allegations of the complaint with
respect to the nature and extent of its business operations but denied all allega-
tions of unfair labor practices. It affirmatively avers that Lois Patty was dis-
charged for cause in that she was an inefficient telephone operator, engaged
in outright insubordination, and refused to comply with the instructions of her
superiors on the job. The Respondent avers that the conduct of Lois Patty inter-
fered with its service to the public and its operation as a public utility to such
an extent that her discharge was imperative.
Pursuant to notice a hearing was conducted at New Cumberland, West Vir-
ginia, from May 9 to 17, 1951, inclusive, before the undersigned Trial Examiner
duly designated by the Chief Trial Examiner. The General Counsel, the Charging
Party, and Respondent were represented by counsel. All parties were afforded
full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to
introduce evidence pertinent to the issues involved herein.
At the close of the hearing counsel for all the parties waived oral argument.
The parties were informed concerning their right to file written briefs and pro-
posed findings of fact and conclusions of law. Within the time allowed by the
Trial Examiner , written briefs were filed by counsel for the Charging Party and
the Respondent. All briefs have been given due consideration.
Based upon the entire record in the case and observation of the witnesses, I
make the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT 1
The Chesapeake and Potomac Telephone Company of West Virginia is an
affiliate of the American Telephone and Telegraph Company, having its prin-
cipal office at Charleston, West Virginia. It is incorporated under the laws of
West Virginia as a public utility. As such it provides local telephone service
over its own lines and equipment throughout the State and long-distance tele-
phone service over connecting lines of the Bell Telephone system. It employs
approximately 4,000 people and operates 108 teldphone exchanges within the
State of West Virginia. It operates a telephone exchange at Weirton, West
Virginia, and employs approximately 105 people at that point. During the period
from January 1, 1950, to December 31, 1950, the Respondent's revenue from busi-
1 See stipulation of the parties ( G. C. Ex. 2).
1130 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ness operations exceeded $22,000,000, of which approximately 22 percent was
derived from long-distance service extending beyond the State of West Virginia.
Within the same period of time it purchased equipment and materials valued in
excess of $1,900,000, of which approximately 94 percent was shipped in interstate
commerce from points outside the State. The Respondent is therefore engaged
in commerce within the meaning of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
West Virginia Division No. 9, Communications Workers of America, CIO, is
a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act, admitting
to membership employees of the Respondent.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Background labor relations
The Respondent has operated under contracts with various labor organizations
since 1937 or 1938. The present contract (Respondent's Exhibit No. 3) was
executed October 22, 1948, by the Respondent and West Virginia Union of
Telephone Workers, T. W. O. C. (CIO). Thereafter, on July 25, 1949, Respondent
and the Union (successor of T. W. O. C. (CIO) ) adopted and continued in force
the aforesaid contract for an initial period ending April 23, 1950. Traffic
operators, service assistants, instructors, service observers, and chief operators'
clerks are included in the bargaining unit. Chief operators and assistant chief
operators are not included in the bargaining unit.
Article VIII at page 16 of the contract provides :
Article VIII-Union Activity on Company premises.
Section 1. Neither the Union nor its representatives or members shall
conduct Union business, or carry on Union activities on Company premises
or on Company time except that Union members, who are also employees may
solicit members and carry on other legitimate Union activities outside of
working periods in space where no Company operations or administrative
work is performed, provided that such solicitation or other legitimate
Union activity shall be limited to small groups of employees and shall not
interfere with the operation of the Company or the use of the space by
other persons or employees for the purposes for which the space is
intended.
The Respondent has established a policy of strict neutrality with respect to
labor organizations. In furtherance of this policy, supervisors are required
to read and deliver to all new employees a printed card containing the following
announcement (Respondent's Exhibit No. No. 1) : "You MAY OR MAY NOT JOIN A
UNION AS YOU SEE FIT. WHETHER OR NOT YOU JOIN A UNION WILL HAVE NO
EFFECT ON YOUR EMPLOYMENT OR ADVANCEMENT WITH THE COMPANY." The
foregoing announcement is preceded by instructions to the supervisors in red
ink as follows : "The statement below is to be read by the supervisor and this
paper handed to each new employee when he first reports for duty. The super-
visor shall not advise the employee or enter into any discussion, because the
Company wishes to remain completely neutral on this matter." In the case
of telephone operators the aforesaid printed card is customarily delivered to
new employees by the chief operator or one of her assistants at the beginning
of their student training period. Receipt of such a printed statement was
acknowledged by witnesses in this case.
THE CHESAPEAKE AND POTOMAC TELEPHONE COMPANY 1131
B. The Weirton telephone exchange
1. The physical plant 2
The Respondent's telephone exchange at Weirton, West Virginia, consists of
a commercial office, plant department, and traffic department. The telephone
central office is a part of the traffic department and is located on the second
floor of the telephone building. Entrance to the central office is made by means
of a staircase leading to a small hallway. Upon entering the hallway there
is a women's lavatory or rest room on the right of the entrance. On the oppo-
site side there is a women's lounge approximately 20 x 40 feet in size. The
doorways of these 2 rooms open on the hallway. The women's lounge is devoted
to the recreation of employees during relief periods, lunch hours, and off-duty
hours. At the rear of the hallway a door opens directly into the central office
where traffic operations are carried on 24 hours a day. Within the operating
room to the left of the entrance there is a cabinet where the head sets of tele-
phone operators are stored while off duty. To the right of the entrance at
intervals along the wall are 5 double lockers used by the operators as a
depository for personal belongings. On the opposite side of the operating room
is situated a bank of switchboards in a curved line along the wall with 27
operating positions. Position number 1 (a test position) is directly in front
of the entrance doorway, and other positions are located numerically adjacent
to the right and occupy more than half the wall space of the entire central
office. Positions numbers 2 and 3 are known as the "B" board and is devoted
exclusively to long-distance service and communication with other telephone
exchanges. Positions numbers 4 to 27, inclusive, are known as the "A" board
and utilized for telephone service to local subscribers. Approximately 5 or 6
feet in rear of positions numbers 3, 4, and 5 is located the desk of the chief
operator's clerk. Near the center of the office and approximately 10 feet in rear
of positions numbers 9, 10, and 11 is located the desk of the chief operator. From
her desk the chief operator has a clear view of all operating positions.
2. Staff and personnel
Anthony B. Brennan is general traffic manager for the Respondent and main-
tains his office in Charleston, West Virginia. Mr. Sperry is district traffic
manager of the Wheeling district including Weirton, and maintains his office
in Wheeling, West Virginia. For the past 11 years, Miss Rose H. Harrick has
been the chief operator and supervisor of the Weirton central office. She is
charged with sole responsibility for the management of that office. As such
she has authority to hire and fire employees and conduct all operations in-
cluding the training and discipline of telephone operators. Mrs. Angela McLane,
evening chief operator, is her assistant, and also classified as a supervisor
within the meaning of the Act. The chief operator's clerk is classified as a
clerical assistant without authority to act as a supervisor.
Next in the chain of authority is a .group of service assistants (formerly
called supervisors) held by the Board not to be supervisors within the mean-
ing of the Act 8 Service assistants are members of the bargaining unit but are
selected and appointed by the chief operator. They report directly to her, but
have no authority to hire and fire or discipline employees, or to effectively re-
commend such action. Sole responsibility rests in the chief operator. Service
2 See Respondent 's Exhibit No. 2.
8 Southeastern Telephone Company, 70 NLRB 4 ; Illinois Consolidated Telephone Company,
61 NLRB 453 ; Illinois Bell Telephone Company, 88 NLRB 1171.
1132 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
assistants are eligible for membersip in the Union, but none of them are mem-
bers at this time. They train and develop telephone operators at the switch-
board and receive customers' complaints. Their wages are fixed by collective
bargaining at a rate somewhat higher than ordinary telephone operators. At
the switchboard they have no assigned positions, but usually walk up and down
in rear of the operating positions for the purpose of observing, correcting, criticiz-
ing, and training the telephone operators. A bell is installed on top of the
switchboard by means of which a service assistant may be called when her
services are desired. During busy periods of the day there are usually two
service assistants always on duty. At least one is on duty at all times except
during quiet periods at night. In the absence of the chief operator or evening
chief operator, a service assistant is usually in charge of the office, but some-
times at night a senior operator may be in charge of operations.
The main body of employees at the central office consists of approximately
70 female telephone operators. They work in shifts and their hours of duty
are regulated in accordance with the demands of the service. During peak
periods approximately 25 of the operators occupy positions at the switchboards.
3. Routine operations
a. Training observations
Service assistants conduct a daily observation of each telephone operator on
duty. This observation is taken by plugging in at the operator's position and
listening in while the operator handles 25 calls. A written report is made to
the chief operator, and the efficiency of the operator is determined by her speed
in completing calls, dexterity in handling the connecting cords and seating
the jacks to afford satisfactory communication, courtesy in conversation with
the subscriber, etc. A more extensive observation is taken at weekly or monthly
intervals. At times the chief operator herself makes observations of individual
operators either at the position or through a monitoring device maintained
at the desk of the clerk. By means of the reports from the service assistants,
observations of her own, and by individual interviews, the chief operator is
informed at all times concerning the efficiency and progress of the operators.
From her desk she may observe all that happens within the central office. She
conducts daily program and headset meetings with small groups of operators
to discuss the phase of instruction or improvement in work to be emphasized
for that particular day. She also conducts meetings with the service assistants
to discuss the work of the office.
b. The "peg count" system
On Monday of each week a meter is placed at each operating position to
determine the number of calls handled per hour by each operator. Operators are
instructed to accurately register each call on the meter, and hourly readings are
transcribed by the service assistants to an official report form. From these
reports the Respondent determines the adequacy of space and equipment and the
number of operators required to handle the service load. Operators are for-
bidden to write down their peg count readings. Having determined from expe-
rience that an efficient operator ordinarily handles from 200 to 250 calls per
hour, the service assistants sometimes criticize an operator if the hourly peg
count falls below that figure. Consequently many of the operators make a
practice of recording the meter readings for their own use in padding the meter
counts to show more calls than actually received. In some cases the service
assistants have condoned such practices, especially in the case of new employees.
It is obvious, however, that falsifying the meter readings would nullify the pur-
pose for which these records are intended and be detrimental rather than helpful
to the Respondent's business.
THE CHESAPEAKE AND POTOMAC TELEPHONE, COMPANY 1133
C. Employment record of Lois Patty
1. In general
Miss Lois Patty was employed as a telephone operator in the Weirton exchange
for approximately 3% years.
Vivian Charmaine Cwiczynski (service assistant) credibly testified that she
was capable of being a good operator, but that she worked in moods. Most of
the time she was rather slow and just worked when she felt like it. She was
often corrected by the service assistants and resented correction. On many
occasions she was seen dozing at the switchboard, and was careless in handling
the connection cords. Throughout a daily observation in February 1950, this
service assistant found Miss Patty slow in handling calls and apparently day
dreaming.
Betty Phillips Lafferty (service assistant) credibly testified that Miss Patty
assumed a poor attitude towards her work and resented corrections. She
frequently corrected Miss Patty for dozing at the switchboard and carrying on
personal conversations.
Evelyn Cosenza (service assistant) credibly testified that from October 1949
to February 1950, she waked Miss Patty up almost every day, and on one day
roused her three times during a single morning. Upon the second correction she
sent Miss Patty out to wash her face. The third time she opened the windows
and reported the incident to the chief operator.
Helen Jezierski (service assistant) credibly testified that in November 1949 she
corrected Miss Patty for personal conversations with other operators and sub-
scribers while on duty at the switchboard, but Miss Patty paid no attention to her
correction. On or about February 10, 1950, a complaint was received from the
Steubenville, Ohio, telephone exchange, that the operator on the "B" board at
Weirton had been discourteous in handling a long-distance call. Miss Patty was
the operator involved, and the incident was reported to the chief operator.
Elizabeth L. Dorich (a fellow operator) credibly testified that from an adja-
cent position at the switchboard she observed Miss Patty dozing on one occasion.
Thereupon she tried to wake her up and Miss Patty became angry, saying that
she should mind her own business.
Rose H. Harrick (chief operator) credibly testified that in April 1949 it was
reported to her that Miss Patty had some trouble with the night operator in
charge. On the following morning, Miss Patty complained that the supervisors
at night were entirely too strict; that they would yell out "slow answers"
before giving the operators sufficient time to handle the calls, and that the girls
were very unhappy about it. Miss Harrick agreed to investigate the matter,
but explained to Miss Patty that it was the responsibility of the operator in
charge to see that patrons got good service after 10 o'clock at night to the
same extent as during daytime hours. She also cautioned Miss Patty that
it was very wrong for an operator to turn away from the switchboard and
start an argument with an assistant. The report at, hand showed that Miss
Patty, when corrected for slowness in answering calls by the night operator
in charge, had turned away from the switchboard and said "Who in hell do
you think you are that you're telling us what to do You have no title ; you
are only an operator like we are." 4 In May 1949, the chief operator observed
Miss Patty carrying on a personal conversation over the line at the switchboard
with another employee in the downstairs commercial office. Miss Harrick inter-
rupted the conversation by plugging in from the monitoring turret at the desk
4 See also testimony of Eleanor Thomas Fox.
1134 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
of the chief operator's clerk , and reprimanded Miss Patty by saying "Surely
you know we are not permitted to do that by now." Later in the same month,
Miss Patty was 'given a routine observation by the chief operator from the
monitoring turret, and it was pointed out to her at that time that her cord
handling and busy tests were very poor. Thereafter she showed improvement
for a while. In June 1949, the evening chief operator, Angela McLane, reported
that Miss Patty had been corrected for talking and singing at the switchboard,
but no further action was taken at the time. In August 1949, the chief operator
observed Miss Patty dozing at the switchboard with her head swaying from one
side to the other. She was waked up and told to stay awake. In September
1949, service assistants Betty Phillips Lafferty and Evelyn Cosenza made reports
to the chief operator that Miss Patty was sleeping at the switchboard
2. The incident of October 4, 1949 6
Lois Patty became convinced that she was being unjustly corrected and criti-
cized about her work. While talking to some of the girls on October 3, 1949,
concerning corrections made by the chief operator, she asserted "The next time
she does that, I am going to tell her about it, because there is no reason for her
to be picking on me like that." During a busy period the next morning (October
4, 1949), the chief operator observed Miss Patty subtracting minutes on her toll
tickets instead of answering signals on the switchboard. It was pointed out to
her that signals on the switchboard required first priority, and that she was slow
in answering the calls. When the chief operator returned to her desk, Miss Patty
remarked to one of the other girls "What did I tell you yesterday? This is it."
Thereupon she secured permission to talk with Miss Harrick, and went over to the
chief operator's desk. Approaching the chief operator she said in a loud voice
"What the hell do you think is wrong with me?" The chief operator inquired
what was wrong and Miss Patty said "`Well, I want to know what the hell do
you think is wrong with me " When requested to sit down and be calm, Miss
Patty said "I will like hell, until you tell me what the hell you think is wrong
with me. I am getting sick and tired of you picking on me. You have been pick-
ing on me for the last 6 or 7 weeks. And you have no business pointing out that
signal to me, I have been here long enough to know what I am doing. And its
damn silly a thing in the way you point signals out to the operators and the way
you teach your service assistants to point them out." Thereupon, the chief
operator said "Would you like to go home?" Miss Patty replied "That would suit
me fine." She was then suspended from service until further notice, and Miss
Patty got her coat and left the exchange.
Evelyn Cosenza (service assistant) credibly testified that she was attracted
by the commotion and heard Miss Patty say to the chief operator, "I don't have
to take that shit from you or anyone else." Miss Patty slammed the door when
she went out. Miss Patty admitted upon cross-examination that she said, "I
don't have to take this crap."
After leaving the Weirton exchange on October 4, 1949, Miss Patty discussed
the situation with Betty Mentzer, president of the local union, and T. R. Null,
president of the local union at Wheeling, West Virginia. As a result of this
discussion she returned to the exchange next morning and assumed her position
at the switchboard without authority from the chief operator. When an ex-
planation was demanded, Miss Patty refused to leave and requested a grievance
hearing in the presence of Betty Mentzer. Shortly thereafter, the president of
the local union came in and presented a written statement dated October 4, 1949
6 From composite testimony
THE CHESAPEAKE AND POTOMAC TELEPHONE, COMPANY 1135
(General Counsel's Exhibit No. 6), to the chief operator certifying that Lois
Patty had been appointed as job stewardess for Weirton central office effective
immediately. Following a conference, Miss Harrick conditionally reinstated
Miss Patty if she would refrain from such conduct in the future. Miss Patty
declared that she made no promises whatever.'
Immediately following the reinstatement of Miss Patty, gossip was prevalent
among the telephone operators in the Weirton-exchange that the Union was
responsible for her reinstatement. Miss Harrick became irked by such reports,
and interviewed all of the operators in small groups to explain that the rein-
statement of Miss Patty was her own decision and was not effected by reason
of any authority exerted by the Union.
D. The union revival campaign
A Nation-wide strike of telephone operators in 1947 had a disastrous effect
upon membership in the local union at Weirton. Scarcely half a dozen retained
their membership and little activity was discernible thereafter until October
1949. In December 1949, Lois Patty attended a State-wide meeting of the Union
at Charleston, and was thereafter made president of the local union without
the formality of an election Upon consolidation with locals at Sisterville and
Follansbee, Miss Patty continued as representative at Weirton but held no
union office. About this time considerable unfavorable criticism was leveled
at the chief operator because of her selection and appointment of service as-
sistants, and a dispute arose at Christmastime concerning candy sent to the
telephone operators by local businessmen. In the early part of February 1950,
Miss Patty attended a union convention at Wheeling, West Virginia, and re-
turned to Weirton with an inspiration to rehabilitate the local union. Upon
presentation of a list of approximately 40 prospective members, T. R. Null
agreed to assist Miss Patty in an educational campaign for the Union. Con-
currently, Miss Patty overheard the chief operator inquire of a telephone oper-
ator whether she was one of the 40. Mr. Null arrived in Weirton on Thursday
morning, February 16, 1950, with a supply of membership cards and other litera-
ture and assisted in a recruiting campaign from the home of Miss Patty about
one-half block from the Weirton exchange. Miss Patty became very active in
her solicitation of new members. Throughout the following Friday and Satur-
day she solicited the telephone operators in the women's lounge during lunch
hour and relief periods. Telephone operators Elizabeth L. Dorich, Irene
Mindzak, Alice Sprague, Eleanor Kelly, and Theresa Gromek complained to
the chief operator or her assistants that Miss Patty's persistence annoyed them
and interfered with their use of the women's lounge. Twice during the day
on Saturday, February 8, 1950, Mrs. Angela McLane (evening chief operator)
called the chief operator at her home concerning the situation. On each
occasion Miss Harrick instructed her not to interfere with Miss Patty but to
report any further complaints from the girls. Miss Patty's tour of duty at
the exchange ended at 4 p. in., but she returned to the women's lounge about
6 o'clock that evening and continued to solicit membership in the Union. There-
upon, Evelyn Cosenza (service assistant) called the chief operator to report
the activity and inquire whether it was permissible. Miss Harrick replied
that it was permissible for Miss Patty to remain there so long as she did not
annoy the other girls or carry on her activities in the operating room. Then
6 Following the incident of October 4, 1949, the chief operator continued to receive
reports from her assistants that Miss Patty dozed at the switchboard and engaged in
personal conversations while on duty.
1136 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
she called Miss Patty over the telephone and cautioned her not to annoy other
operators using the women's lounge. Miss Patty replied "Who's annoying who?
Somebody has to look after the little fellows and let them know how to make
their job secure." She also remarked that Miss Harrick took people away from
the board for hours and talked with them and nobody stopped her. Miss Patty
concluded the conversation by saying, "Are you through? I have more im-
portant things to do than listen to your crap." When leaving the building she
opened the door to the operating room and yelled, "You can call and tell her
I'm leaving now."
When Miss Patty reported for work at the exchange next day (Sunday), she
requested permission to sit alone at position 18 so that no one would ask her
any questions, because she was not taking any chances on account of the trouble
with Miss Harrick on Saturday and thought she would work real nice that day.
Miss Harrick came into the operating room about noon for a few minutes but
said nothing to Miss Patty. She left after talking to the service assistant in
charge at the chief operator's desk.
E. Suspension and dischai ge of Lois Patty
Miss Patty reported for work at the exchange on Monday morning, February
20, 1950, at 7 o'clock. The usual Monday peg count was taken at S o'clock, and
the meter at Miss Patty's position registered 560 calls for the first hour.
Surprised at the abnormal reading, the service assistant checked'the meter and
found it in good working condition. She then reported the reading to the chief
operator. Between 8: 30 and 9 o'clock Miss Patty was given the routine daily
observation by a service assistant. At 10 o'clock the hourly peg count was
again taken and Miss Harrick observed that Miss Patty recorded the reading on
a sheet of paper contrary to standing instructions. Thereupon, she plugged in
with Miss Patty's position and reprimanded her for violation of the rule. She
also criticized the way in which Miss Patty was answering signals and handling
connection cords at the switchboard. Miss Patty remarked that she had already
been given her daily observation and made no effort to comply with the chief
operator's criticism of her work. The chief operator persisted by saying "Well,
it didn't do you any good, it seems like your cord handling is poor, you are
breaking the rule of the office by showing the peg count register reading on your
scrap paper. Why, Miss Patty, anything I say to you doesn't do you any good,
does it?" Miss Patty then became excited, dropped her hands in her lap, and said
"Miss Harrick, you are forcing me to work under a strain and I don't have to do
that. I refuse to operate with you plugged in on me." The chief operator insisted
that she proceed with her work and, upon her failure to respond, said "Miss
Patty, since you refuse to work for me, I can't let you sit here at the switchboard
doing nothing. I feel I have to suspend you from service again." Thereupon,
Miss Patty jumped off her chair, pushed the chief operator aside, and ran towards
the headset cabinet. Instead of putting her headset in the cabinet, she threw
it several feet against the dummy section of the "B" board and it fell on the floor.
She then took her coat from the locker and banged the locker door two or three
times. Then she went out to the women's lounge, slamming the door behind her.
Then she opened the door and slammed it again. Miss Harrick followed her into
the women's lounge and requested her to leave the building quietly. Miss Patty
retorted, "I will like hell, you can't push me around now. I will show you from
here on in that nobody has to take this shit from you." When Miss Harrick
started to call the plant manager from downstairs by telephone, Miss Patty said
"Never mind, I will go down there and get him for you." Then she left the
building.
THE CHESAPEAKE AND POTOMAC TELEPHONES COMPANY 1137
The chief operator made an official report (Respondent's Exhibit No. 5) to
her superiors concerning the incident of February 20, 1950, and also discussed
.the situation in person with Mr. Sperry, district traffic manager. He in turn dis-
cussed the matter with the general traffic manager. With the concurrence of
both the district traffic manager and the general traffic manager, Miss Harrick
decided to convert the suspension of Miss Patty to absolute discharge. On
Friday, February 24, 1950, Miss Harrick called Miss Patty by telephone and re-
quested her to come to the exchange for an interview. An official report was
made of this meeting (Respondent's Exhibit No. 6). At that time Miss Patty
was informed that her record had been carefully reviewed and, that in view
of her latest offense, the suspension on Monday had been changed to a dismissal
from her employment with the Respondent. Thereby the discharge of Miss Lois
Patty became effective as of February 20, 1950.
E. Independent violations of Section 8 (a) (1)
1. Discouraging membership in the Union
It is alleged in the complaint that the Respondent interfered with, restrained,
and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7
of the Act. When Miss Patty was reinstated on October 5, 1949, she sought to
disparage the authority of the chief operator by proclaiming victory for the
Union. In defense of her own position Miss Harrick openly informed the
telephone operators that the Union was not responsible for the reinstatement.
Under the circumstances, I cannot find that the Respondent thereby engaged
in an unfair labor practice.
It appears from the testimony of Eleanor Thomas Fox that in 1949 the chief
operator refused'to permit her to exchange shifts at the switchboard with Betty
Mentzer, because the night shift would afford a better opportunity for the
president of the local union to talk with the girls about the Union. Miss Fox's
version of the conversation is considered colorable testimony and, in any
event, I find no unfair labor practice by the Respondent in this incident.
On or about February 1, 1950, Chief Operator Harrick summoned telephone
operators Ida Zaladyziejewski and Helen Zagula to her desk and expressed
surprise that they had joined the Union. These girls had not joined at that
time but had the matter under. consideration. She discussed the Union with
them, and stated that in the event of a strike they would not be able to make
it up. She said that during the 1947 strike the Weirton Steel Company came
down and took the names of all the strikers and pickets for the purpose of
ascertaining whether their fathers or other relatives employed by the Steel
Company were ever in the Union. The impression was thereby created in the
minds of these girls that employment of their parents or relatives by the Weirton
Steel Company would be jeopardized if they joined the Union. In the opinion
of the Trial Examiner this interview by the chief operator was a departure
from the Respondent's avowed policy of neutrality with respect to joining the
Union, and constituted interrogation of employees concerning their affiliation
with a labor organization contrary to the principles enunciated by the Board
in the case of Standard-Coosa-Thatcher Company, 85 NLRB 1358, and in the
case of Meier cE Frank Company, Inc., 89 NLRB 1016. The Respondent thereby
interfered with, restrained, and coerced employees in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
1138 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
2. Solicitation of resignations from the Union
The union contract (Respondent's Exhibit No. 3) provided for payroll deduc-
tions of union dues upon written authorization of employees. It follows that
resignation from the Union entailed written revocation of that authorization.
During and following the 1947 strike, Miss Harrick had instructed employees
concerning the preparation and presentation of a form to revoke their payroll
deduction authorizations, and thereafter it served the purpose of a resignation
from the Union.
Telephone operator Susan McElwain credibly testified that at the close of
a head set meeting following the discharge of Lois Patty, the chief operator
said that a lot of the girls had inquired whether they could be released from
their contracts with the Union. She was very glad to hear about it, but that
she could not take care of that. That was the work of the service assistants,
and they would take care of it if the girls wanted to get out of the Union.
On March 30, 1950, Mary Lou Stier signed a revocation slip (General Counsel's
Exhibit No. 13), and thereby resigned from the Union. The handwriting
thereon was identified by Miss Harrick as that of the chief operator's clerk,
Josephine Kasprzak. On the same date a resignation (General Counsel's
Exhibit No. 11) in identical language was signed by four other telephone oper-
ators. The caption (place and date) thereon is admittedly in the handwriting
of Miss Harrick, but she disclaimed any knowledge of the document. Betty
Phillips Lafferty (service assistant) claimed authorship of the paper and pro-
cured the signatures thereon of Ethel J. Archer, Rose Marie Clark, and Mary
Jane Gallagher. The signature of Julia Ann Helba (now Czaruk) was procured
by service assistant Evelyn Cosenza.
On April 7, 1950, a resignation from the Union (General Counsel's Exhibit
No. 5) was signed by three other telephone operators. Service. assistant Evelyn
Cosenza claimed authorship of this paper and procurement thereon of the
signatures of Mildred M. Morris and Ida Menendez (now Zaladysiejewski), but
was not certain whether Ida Menendez signed it at the chair of the service
assistant or at the desk of the chief operator's clerk. The signer (Menendez)
testified that the chief operator's clerk wrote the paper and that it was signed
at her desk. The third signer, Dorothy Krnaich, testified that the same paper
was signed by her at the request of Miss Harrick when she presented it from
a drawer of her desk at the conclusion of an interview concerning the Union
Testimony concerning the authorship and circumstances under which the fore-
going resignations from the Union were procured is conflicting, but I am
convinced from a preponderance of the evidence that the papers were circulated
and handled interchangeably by service assistants and the chief operator's clerk
within the one room occupied as the Weirton central office under the jurisdiction
and supervision of Miss Harrick. Whether or not the chief operator actually
participated in the procurement of the resignations is not clearly established,
but I find from a preponderance of the evidence that Miss Harrick authorized
and is charged with knowledge of and responsibility for the solicitation thereof.
The fact that the chief operator 's clerk and service assistants are not supervisors
within the meaning of the Act does not relieve the Respondent from respon-
sibility for unfair labor practices engaged in by them while under the super-
vision and direction of the chief operator within her own office. By reason
thereof the Respondent interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees
in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
3. Alleged prohibition-of solicitation on company premises
It is alleged in the complaint that the Respondent prohibited the solicitation
of union membership on its own premises during nonworking hours. The union
THE CHESAPEAKE AND POTOMAC TELEPHONE, COMPANY 1139
contract itself prohibits such solicitation if it interferes with the operations of
the Company or use of space by other persons or employees for the purpose
it was intended . The persistent solicitation of Lois Patty interfered with the
relaxation of employees and their use of the women's lounge to such an extent
that , several of the telephone operators refrained from going there during relief
periods and complained to the management about it . Miss Patty was cautioned
not to annoy the employees , but was never prohibited from engaging in union
activities there to the extent permitted by the contract It is found , therefore,
that the Respondent did not engage in an unfair labor practice by prohibiting
the solicitation of membership in the Union on its own property in accordance
with the contract.
4 The alleged surveillance
It is alleged by amendment to the complaint that the Respondent engaged in
unlawful surveillance of the concerted activities of its employees by personal
and telephonic observation. Having selected the premises of the Respondent
as a place to carry on an intensive membership drive for the Union, Miss Patty
cannot complain if her activities were observed by supervisors of the Respondent
having equal or greater rights in the use of the women's lounge and other
facilities. The Respondent cannot be restricted from lawfully administering,
policing, regulating, and observing the use of its own property and facilities.
It is admitted that the chief operator installed within the Weirton exchange
a monitoring device on Miss Patty's telephone line for the purpose of detecting
and intercepting interference or personal conversations with telephone operators
on duty at the switchboards. Such devices are customarily utilized by telephone
companies for training purposes, to promote control of its employees and equip-
ment during working hours, and to increase efficiency of the service. It is appar-
ent that Miss Patty's line was "tapped" for a lawful purpose, and the Respondent
thereby did not engage in an unfair labor practice.
Concluding Findings
It is clearly established by a preponderance of the evidence that the employ-
ment record of Miss Lois Patty was unsatisfactory .to her employer for several
months prior to her discharge She assumed a noncooperative attitude towards
the supervisory personnel of the Respondent, and sporadically engaged in dis-
orderly conduct in the presence of other employees. She challenged the authority
of the chief operator to exercise the inherent prerogatives of management to
control and direct the orderly procedure of instruction and training of employees.
Finally on February 30, 1950, she refused to work under conditions established
by the Respondent, and attempted to prescribe the conditions under which she
would work. It is not required that an employer submit to insubordination and
indignities on the part of employees even though they are at the same time en-
gaged in concerted activities for the purpose of self-organization and collective
bargaining or other mutual aid or protection. The protection of the Act does
not extend to employees while engaged in gross insubordination and misconduct
tending to interfere with and disrupt the orderly and lawful operation of the
employer's business.' The insubordination and disorderly conduct of Miss Patty
provided just cause for her dismissal, and I cannot find from the record in this
case that the Respondent discriminated in regard to her hire or tenure of em-
ployment or any term or condition of employment to encourage or discourage
membership in any labor organization. It will therefore be recommended that
the complaint with respect to the discharge 'of Misss Lois Patty be dismissed.
7 Midland Broadcasting Co, 93 NLRB 455.
1140 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
With respect to the independent violations of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act,
I find that the Respondent engaged in certain unfair labor practices on and after
February 1, 1950, by and through the acts of its chief operator, her agents and
assistants, within the Weirton central office. The interrogation and coercive
interview of Ida Zaladyziejewski and Helen Zagula by the chief operator, and
the authorized solicitation of the resignation of employees from the Union by
service assistants and the chief operator's clerk under her supervision and control
constituted interference, restraint, and coercion of employees in the exercise
of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.8
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent described in Section III, above, occurring
in connection with the Respondent's operations described in Section I, above,
have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce
among the several States, and such of them as have been found to constitute
unfair labor practices tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing
commerce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent by and through its chief operator and
her assistants at the Weirton exchange has engaged in certain unfair labor
practices, and concluding from the nature and circumstances thereof that such
practices are likely to be continued in the future, it will be recommended that
the Respondent cease and desist from all conduct herein found to be a violation
of the Act, and also take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the
policies of the Act.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and the entire record in the
case, I make the following :
CONCLUSIONS OF LAw
1. West Virginia Division No. 9, Communications Workers of America, CIO,
is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act, admit-
ting to membership employees of the Respondent.
2. By interfering with, restraining,' and coercing its employees in the exercise
of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the Respondent has engaged
in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8
(a) (1) of the Act.
3. The aforesaid conduct of the Respondent constitutes unfair labor practices
affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The Respondent has not engaged in an unfair labor practice within the
meaning of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act by discharging and refusing to re-
instate Miss Lois Patty.
[Recommendations omitted from publication in this volume.]
s Magnolia Cotton Mills, 79 NLRB 91; Amory Garment Co., 80 NLRB 182; Macon
Textiles, Inc., 80 NLRB 1521; Biggs Antique Co., 80 NLRB 345; Red Rock Co., 84 NLRB
521 ; H t H Mfg. Co., Inc., 87 NLRB 1373.