Southwestern Bell Telephone Co.

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