American Hospital Association

DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD American Hospital Association and Paul Von Ebers. Case 13-CA-15542 June 9, 1977 DECISION AND ORDER BY MEMBERS JENKINS, MURPHY, AND WALTHER On February 4, 1977, Administrative Law Judge James L. Rose issued the attached Decision in this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed exceptions and a supporting brief. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated its authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. The Board has considered the record and the attached Decision in light of the exceptions and brief and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings, and conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge and to adopt his recommended Order. ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board adopts as its Order the recommend- ed Order of the Administrative Law Judge and hereby orders that the Respondent, American Hospi- tal Association, Chicago, Illinois, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the said recommended Order. DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE JAMES L. ROSE, Administrative Law Judge: This matter was heard before me at Chicago, Illinois, on November 15 and 16, 1976, upon the General Counsel's complaint which alleged that three employees of the Respondent were discharged on March 23, 1976, because they had engaged in protected, concerted activity. It is alleged that the discharges were violative of Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 151, et seq. On the basis of the record as a whole, including my observation of the witnesses, briefs, and arguments of counsel, I hereby make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT i. BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT The American Hospital Association is an Illinois corporation which is engaged in the business of gathering, analyzing, publishing, and selling information relating to and concerning hospitals. Each year in connection with this business the Respondent receives gross revenues in excess of $500,000 from the sale of books and other 230 NLRB No. 10 publications, and it receives goods, products, and materials valued in excess of $50,000 which are shipped directly from points outside the State of Illinois. The Respondent admits, and I find, that it is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act. In. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Factual Background The parties are in general agreement concerning the operative facts of this matter. The dispute concerns evaluation of those facts and the inferences to be drawn therefrom. Very briefly, in the fall of 1975, five employees (the three dischargees and two others) determined to bring to the attention of fellow employees and management certain grievances they had, including such management decisions as taking away use of a meeting room and instituting a dress code. The vehicle for raising these matters was the publication of a leaflet styled "Turkey Tactics." Five issues of "Turkey Tactics" were published between November 19, 1975, and March 22, 1976. The text of these five issues are reproduced as appendixes to this Decision. The principal writers and publishers of "Turkey Tactics" were Paul Von Ebers, Mitchell Jonathan Arlook, and Caryn Stack. Participating with them also was Kathleen Murrin, who before the March 23 discharges had trans- ferred from the Respondent to a sister organization. A fifth employee was involved only to a limited extent and was therefore not discharged. Management officials testified that they were very concerned about the publication of "Turkey Tactics"; they tried to find out who was responsible, and when they did, on or about March 22, 1976, the three principals were discharged. Subsequently Von Ebers, Arlook, and Stack each protested the discharge through the Respondent's griev- ance procedure. Stack was reinstated without loss of pay or benefits because she had previously announced that she would resign in July to attend medical school. "Turkey Tactics" was printed on a offset press away from the Respondent's premises and distributed after working hours. A copy was placed on each employee's desk as well as the desks of supervisors. B. Issues The principal issues in this matter are whether the publication of "Turkey Tactics" was protected, concerted activity, and whether the discharges for having participated in its publication were violative of Section 8(aX I). The Respondent seems to argue: (a) That publishing the leaflets was not protected because other mechanisms existed by which the employees could pursue their grievances and/or, (b) even if normally protected, this activity lost its protected character because it was anony- mous and conveyed "ridicule, insubordination, and harass- ment." For the reasons set forth below, I find that publication and distribution of "Turkey Tactics" was protected, did 54 AMERICAN HOSPITAL ASSOCIATION not lose its character as such, and that discharge of the three employees violated Section 8(aX I) of the Act. C. Analysis and Concluding Findings At the hearing, counsel for the Respondent stated that the behavior of Von Ebers, Arlook, and Stack prior to March 23, other than publication of "Turkey Tactics," contributed to their dismissal. However, in sum, the testimony of the Respondent's witnesses is to the effect that but for the publication and distribution of "Turkey Tactics," the three would not have been discharged. Thus, in memorandums signed by Robert Linde, manag- er of the Division of Information Services, it is stated: "The action (discharge of Von Ebers) was taken because I was convinced that Mr. Von Ebers was involved in publication of Turkey Tactics." And again, "The action [discharge of Arlook I taken was made because I was convinced that Mr. Arlook was involved in suggesting, preparing or distrib- uting the publication, 'Turkey Tactics'." Finally, "I stated I had discussed the publication with vice presidents and that I believed she [Stack] was involved in the publication which expressed disloyalty to the Association. It was decided to terminate her services that day." Whether the Respondent may have had good reasons for discharging the three employees, it is overwhelmingly clear from the record that they were in fact discharged when they were because the Respondent concluded that they were causing the publication and distribution of "''Turkey Tactics." To the extent that the Respondent now offers other reasons for their discharges, such are clearly pretextuous. This case involves "Turkey Tactics" only. As indicated, the Respondent argues that distribution of "Turkey Tactics" was not protected because the Associa- tion has two mechanisms by which employees can bring to the attention of management such grievances they may have concerning working conditions. In essence, the Respondent argues that even if presenting grievances through an anonymous publication would normally be protected by Section 7, where there exist other means of taking up grievances with management, those means must be used exclusively. Any activity by employees different from those means is not protected. In support of its position, the Respondent cites two cases which are not in point. E.g., Farmers Union Cooperative Marketing Ass'n., 145 NLRB 1, 2-3 (1963), where discharge of an employee because he used the contractual grievance procedure was held to be violative of Section 8(aX I), the Board stated: . . .the Board has also held that, where an employee does not utilize his contractual right to grieve or goes "over the head" of his bargaining agent to press his individual claim, his grievance becomes "personal" and loses its statutory protection. The issue discussed here by the Board was whether the Act of an individual may or may not be "concerted." The Respondent cited no case where the Board has held that a company can limit the means by which employees can concertedly press matters involving their mutual aid or protection. The "formal grievance procedure," which the Respon- dent contends the employees should have used, is not mutually binding. Rather it consists of a procedure set up and controlled by the Respondent. There is no showing that employees gave up their right to press grievances in other ways as a quidpro quo for this procedure, or that they could even invoke it as a means of presenting their contentions here. The second "vehicle" provided by the Association was the "Employee Relations Committee" established by the Respondent. It has employee members and it exists, in part at least, as a means by which employees can present matters of common concern involving terms and condi- tions of employment to management. According to the testimony of Vice President Sharon Yenney, it was created by the Association and continues to be run by the Association. Although the complaint does not allege a violation of Section 8(aX2), it is clear that the Employee Relations Committee is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act, and that it is not only assisted but in fact is dominated by the Respondent. Without determining, because such is not before me, whether existence of the Employee Relations Committee is violative of Section 8(aX2) of the Act, certainly it cannot be found to be the bargaining representative of any of the three employees here. Nor would any employee be bound to present grievances only through the Employee Relations Committee. Bypassing the Employee Relations Committee would not vitiate otherwise protected, concerted activity. In short, I conclude that an employer may not prescribe, to the exclusion of all other lawful means, the method by which employees may engage in concerted activity for their mutual aid and protection. Accordingly, these three employees had the right under Section 7 of the Act to present grievances relating to their working conditions-the meeting room, certain manage- ment decisions affecting their basic jobs, morale of employees, the dress code, and the like. These clearly involved "mutual aid and protection" and are matters therefore protected within the broad scope of Section 7. While the Respondent does not specifically dispute this, it is claimed that the publication of "Turkey Tactics" was not really for the purpose of promoting these concerns, but rather was for the purpose of insulting and ridiculing management. This dovetails with Respondent's final argument that even if distribution of leaflets by employees is generally protected, because of its insubordinate nature, "Turkey Tactics" lost its protection. Thus the Respondent could discharge the perpetrators of this with impunity. The Board has considered this subject on many occa- sions and has concluded that otherwise protected activity loses its character as such, or the employee engaging in it renders himself unfit for further service, where the associated language is sufficiently bad. Thus, in Ben Perkin Corporation, the Board held that the language said in i 181 NLRB 1025 (1970), enfd. 452 F.2d 205 (C.A. 7. 1971). 55 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD connection with protected activity is itself protected unless "it was so offensive, defamatory or opprobrious as to remove it from the protection of the Act." Other phraseolo- gy has been used to describe what it takes for the protection to be lost: "malice or deliberate intention to falsify";2 "deliberately and maliciously false"; 3 "such flagrant, violent, serious, or extreme misconduct"; 4 "fraught with malice";5 "in malicious opposition to the exercise by Respondent of a right"; 6 "malicious or bad- faith intent";7 "deliberately or maliciously false"; s "so offensive, obscene, or obnoxious"; 9 "in the most flagrant or egregious of cases;"' 0 and "so flagrant, violent, or extreme." 11 In analyzing whether an employee's particular act lost the protection of the Act, the Board stated in Prescott Industrial Products Company: 12 That line is drawn between cases where employees engaged in concerted activities exceed the bounds of lawful conduct in a moment of animal exuberance or in a manner not motivated by improper motives and those flagrant cases in which the misconduct is so violent or of such character as to render the employee unfit for further service. In these cases, sometimes it is held that the language is not protected and therefore discharge for its use is not in violation of the Act. Other times it is held that using the language in question made one unfit for continued employment, and discharge for unfitness is not a violation. Though the emphasis may be somewhat different, the concept is the same, and the rule appears to be: One may not be discharged for engaging in protected concerted activity, but if in the course of engaging in such activity, he uses sufficiently opprobrious, profane, defamatory, or malicious language then he may be discharged for this reason. In any event, the burden is on the employer to show that the language is sufficiently bad so as to justify the discharge. That is, from a review of these cases it appears that once the General Counsel established that the employee in fact engaged in protected, concerted activity and was discharged for that reason, the burden of persuasion shifted to the Respondent to demonstrate the quantum of opprobrium to justify the discharge. For instance, as the Board said in Leviton Manufacturing Co. Inc., 13 where the discharge of four employees for filing a civil action against the Company was held unlawful: This activity is protected under the Act unless this activity was done with malice or in bad faith. In our view, the evidence clearly failed to establish any malicious or bad-faith intent. Accordingly, such dis- charge constituted an interference, restraint, and I Westinghouse Electric Corporation, 77 NLRB 1058, 1060(1948). 3 American Shuffleboard Company, 92 NLRB 1272, 1274(1951). 4 Indiana Gear Works, 156 NLRB 397,400 (1965). 5 Hicks Ponder Company, 168 NLRB 806, 815 (1967). 6 Ibid. Leviton Manufacturing Company, Inc., 203 NLRB 309, 311 (1973). 8 Jacobs Transfer, Inc., 201 NLRB 210. 218(1973). 9 Southwestern Bell Telephone Company, 200 NLRB 667, 670 (1972). 10 American Telephone & Telegraph Co., 211 NLRB 782, 783 (1974). coercion with respect to the Section 7 rights, thus violated Section 8(aXl) of the Act. And in American Shuffleboard Company,14 the Board said: Employees do not forfeit the protection of the Act if, in discussing matters of such vital common concern as their employer's financial status, they give currency to inaccurate information. Furthermore, since there is no evidence that Paladino's report, even if inaccurate, was deliberately or maliciously false, it is immaterial that the Respondent may have acted upon a good-faith belief that such was the case. Finally, on the question of the burden of proof, the Board noted in Wall Manufacturing Company: 15 There is no cogent evidence (presented by the Respondent) that the allegations (by the discharged employees) were with intent to falsify or maliciously injure the Respondent, that they were defamatory or insulting in character, or that they were manifestly destructive of discipline. The question here is whether the Respondent has demonstrated that the language used in the five publica- tions of "Turkey Tactics" was so opprobrious, flagrant, insulting, defamatory, insubordinate, fraught with malice, etc., as to justify the discharge of Von Ebers, Arlook, and Stack. In my judgment the Respondent has failed to met its burden of establishing a sufficient quantum of literary abuse to justify the discharges. Aside from the leaflets themselves, the only evidence that the language used was in any way insulting or opprobrious were the conclusions to that effect by the Respondent's management employees. Such is scarcely determinative of the matter, lest every time an employee engages in protected activity they risk discipline if the employer happens to take offense. In this, as in the cases cited, the language itself must be analyzed, giving due regard to employee rights. Any error should be in favor of allowing employees to enjoy the protection of the Act. It may well be that to some extent and to some people the essence of "Turkey Tactics" was insulting to manage- ment. Indeed, anytime a manager is critized by employees he must, to some extent, feel insulted. It may also have been the case that when in "Turkey Tactics," Volume 3, two former managers were likened to three other individu- als who had been notable failures, such was insulting. However, on balance I cannot believe that these leaflets, II Dreis & Krump Manufacturin& Inc., 221 NLRB 309. 315 (1975). 12 205 NLRB 51 (1973). While the Eighth Circuit denied enforcement of this case, 500 F.2d 6 (1974), the Board has specifically declined to accept that determination. The holding of Prescott is still binding. J. P. Stevens & Co., Inc., 219 NLRB 850 (1975). 13 Supra, fn. 7, at 311. 14 Supra, fn. 3, at 1275. 15 137 NLRB 1317, 1319(1962). 56 AMERICAN HOSPITAL ASSOCIATION even if sarcastically written, rise to the level of opprobri- ousness to justify the discharges. It is noted that here, unlike other cases where the employee activity was found to be detrimental to the employer's business, thus justifying the discharges e.g., Local Union 1229 International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers v. N. LR.B.,16 "Turkey Tactics" was not distribut- ed to the general public but remained within the confines of the Respondent's business. Richard Uyvri, one of the supervisors who was specifi- cally criticized in "Turkey Tactics" with regard to his implementation of a dress code testified: "I felt that I was being attacked by my fellow employees and I was outraged." He stated that he took up the matter of "Turkey Tactics" with his immediate supervisors asking that some disciplinary action be brought against those who were publishing it. While I have no doubt that Uyvri, or indeed anyone who is criticized, is not happy with the fact, that he was "outraged" stretches his credibility and, in any event, my observation of him on the witness stand does not persuade me that in fact he considered this matter as insulting as has been suggested. The testimony of the Respondent's management, partic- ularly including that of Allen Manzano, a vice president who made the ultimate decision of discharge, leads me to conclude that they were unhappy, not so much with the substance or "insulting" nature of "Turkey Tactics," but because some employees had the temerity to criticize management. In any event, the mere fact that an employee may be sarcastic or insulting in his pursuit of activity otherwise protected should not and does not in and of itself render the activity unprotected or him unfit for continued employment. It must be more. It must indeed be "flagrant" or "fraught with malice." Here there is no indication of a malicious intent on the part of the employees. From a reading of "Turkey Tactics," it is clear that there were areas of substantial concern to employees and they were motivated to try to change what they felt were inappropriate management decisions. Rather than maliciously attempting to hurt the Company I conclude from the leaflets, as well as the testimony of the dischargees, that they were attempting to better a company for which they were working as professionals. Finally, and of significance in this matter, is the fact that the management of the Respondent made no effort at any time prior to March 23 to warn employees that publication of "Turkey Tactics" was disapproved and that those employees involved would be disciplined. In all cases cited by the Respondent, and others, where the Board has found that an employee's language associ- ated with otherwise protected activity was nevertheless cause for discharge, that employee had been warned in some way that continuation would result in discipline. For instance, in Southwestern Bell Telephone, supra, employees wore T-shirts with "Ma Bell is a cheap mother," which was found to be obscene and insulting. The 16 346 U.S. 464 (1953). 17 Caryn Stack was in fact reinstated with full backpay. This was not conditional on her resigning at a later time. Prior to her discharge she had employees were asked to remove the T-shirts or cover them up which they refused to do. Only then were they disciplined. Given that there is no evidence of a malicious intent, nor in my judgment can such intent be implied from the language of "Turkey Tactics"; given that the language of "Turkey Tactics" is not particularly opprobrious, flagrant, or sufficiently insulting to render it unprotected; and given that in any event the Respondent made no effort to advise employees that those responsible would be disciplined, all lead me to conclude that the Respondent has not met its burden of proving that the level of nastiness of these publications was sufficient to justify discharge. Finally, while some of the Respondent's witnesses made general statements concerning disruption of office disci- pline, there is no specific evidence that distribution of "Turkey Tactics" was disruptive nor is there anything in the leaflets which would inherently be disruptive of discipline. For these reasons, I conclude that the publication distribution of "Turkey Tactics" was protected, concerted activity; and that the Respondent has failed to establish that somehow it lost its character as such. Since the Respondent discharged Von Ebers, Arlook, and Stack because of their participation in publishing and distributing "Turkey Tactics," I find that the Respondent thereby violated Section 8(aX l) of the Act. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW i. American Hospital Association is, and at all times material herein has been, an employer engaged in com- merce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act. 2. By publishing and distributing a leaflet known as "Turkey Tactics," Paul Von Ebers, Mitchell Jonathan Arlook, and Caryn Stack engaged in concerted activity protected by Section 7 of the Act. 3. By discharging Von Ebers, Arlook, and Stack because they engaged in activity described in paragraph 2, above, the Respondent interfered with, restrained, and coerced employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act, and accordingly violated Section 8(aXl) thereof. 4. The Respondent failed to establish that the activity described above lost its protected character because of the nature of the publication or the language used. THE REMEDY Having found that the Respondent has committed the unfair labor practices described above, it will be ordered to cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. The Respondent will be ordered to offer Paul Von Ebers and Mitchell Jonathan Arlook l7 immediate and full reinstate- ment to their former positions of employment or, if those positions no longer exist, to substantially equivalent jobs, without prejudice to their seniority or other rights or planned to cease employment in July in order to attend medical school. which she is now doing. 57 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD privileges, and to make them whole for any loss of wages or other benefits that they may have suffered as a result of the discrimination against them in accordance with the formula set forth in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289 (1950), and Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716 (1962). Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law, and the entire record in this case, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I hereby issue the following recommend- ed: Vol. I, No. I 26 Nov. 1975 POSH PLANNING FOR PANEL Meeting room disappears. Panel Survey thought responsible. Unilateral decision once again dictates policy. THE DIVISION TALKS TURKEY ORDER 18 The Respondent, American Hospital Association, Chica- go, Illinois, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: I. Cease and desist from: (a) Discharging or otherwise discriminating against employees because they have engaged in concerted activity for their mutual aid or protection. (b) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Offer immediate and full reinstatement to Paul Von Ebers and Mitchell Jonathan Arlook and make them whole for any losses in accordance with the provisions set forth in "The Remedy" section above. (b) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the Board or its agents, for examination and copying, all payroll records, social security records, timecards, person- nel records and reports, and all other documents necessary and relevant to analyze and compute the amount of backpay due under this Order. (c) Post at its facility copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix F."'9 Copies of said notice on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 13, after being duly signed by the Respondent, shall be posted immediately upon receipt thereof and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (d) Notify the said Regional Director for Region 13, in writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith. 's In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the findings, conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Sec. 102.48 of the Rule and Regulations, be adopted by the Board and become its findings, conclusions, and Order, and all objections thereto shall be deemed waived for all purposes. i9 In the event that the Board's Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board." Turkey Tactics the tool of the truth APPENDIX A Turkey Tactics APPENDIX B the tool of the truth IS THE HAND FASTER THAN THE EYE? KEEP YOUR EYES ON THE PEA... KEEP YOUR EYES ON THE HANDS... Vol. 1, No. 2 II December 1975 The Shell Game: A shell game, of course, needs a pea. We all know there is a regulation pea for this game. We also know that the object of the game is to get you to think that there is a pea under every shell. Now some people will try to get you to believe that any pea you find will do. And some people will even try to make a pea out of a cranberry. What happens when you get a red pea or an empty shell? YOU LOSE! So .... Put your money on the table, boys and girls. Take a chance and play the game at the Division of Research Support Services. See if you can tell the empty shells. See if you know a cranberry from a pea. .. any turkey worth its stuffing should. Please report any irregularities to the hands on the shells. And that could get you into a whole new game. THE DIVISION TALKS TURKEY Turkey Tactics APPENDIX C the tool of the truth Vol. 1, No. 3 DATE: December 30, 1975 TO: Richard M. Uyvari 58 AMERICAN HOSPITAL ASSOCIATION FROM: Turkey Tactics SUBJECT: Dress Code?? Mr. Uyvari, it has come to our attention that you are attempting to enforce certain requirements as to the kemptness of data analysts on the Annual Survey, to wit: a dress code. In this regard we would like to call to your attention the unalterable facts on the relation of kemptness to efficiency as elucidated by the National Study on Work Effectiveness conducted by the Com- mission on Productivity in this year 1975. An excerpt from this study is printed below. COUNT I TOT PCT I INEFFICIENT EFFICIENT ROW I TOTAL I K - I 0 I UNKEMPT I - I 1 I KEMPT I -I COLUMN TOTAL 38 0.1 14233 48.5 14271 48.6 0 I 1 I I I I I I I I 14806 50.4 283 1.0 15089 51.4 I I 14844 I 50.6 I I 14516 I 49.4 I 29360 100.0 Mr. Uyvari, will you please bring your practice into line with the overwhelming facts. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. THE DIVISION TALKS TURKEY Turkey Tactics APPENDIX D the tool of the truth Vol. 2, No. I 26 February 1976 TURKEY TACTICS brings you a one time exclusive offer at no charge to readers - enroll now in: FAMOUS MANAGERS SCHOOL Are you and your employees "speaking a different language?" Having morale problems? Feeling uncomfortable in a particular role? Having trouble explaining the budget? In your spare time - at home, in the office - you can learn the techniques used by the "pros." Sign up today for these exciting courses! FMS 101 Communications - "Let's pretend it's a two- way street" FMS 102 Delegation of Authority - "Don't dirty those hands" FMS 201 Decision Making - "Intransigence and equivocation" FMS 301 Motivation - "We'll analyze this after we clean up the data" FMS 501 Budgeting - "Where to cut and why, or pass that ax when you're through, Al" Join the ranks of these famous graduates: Abe Gibron, George Custer, "Wrong-Way" Corrigan, Fire Commr. Quinn, Bernard Ferber, Sc. D., E. Martin Egelston, Ph. D. Don't let this golden management opportunity pass you by. (advertisement) (advertisement) (advertisement) THE DIVISION TALKS TURKEY Turkey Tactics APPENDIX E the tool of the truth Vol. 2, No. 2 18 March 1976 As the dust settles in the Division of Information Services and calm once again returns, it would seem time for a moment of reflection and meditation. We at Turkey Tactics are hard pressed to come to grips with the situation at hand. Initially, we felt an overwhelming sense of deja vu. After all, how many times have we been confronted with events which let us know that we are marching quickstep toward mediocrity? With Alma leaving, and the Department of Special Research Studies shrinking, we do feel the sting more sharply. Alma's standard of professionalism has ranked her high among her peers. If time after time her superiors (those in management) have made it clear that they do not value her, are we really to be suprised at her departure? Yet where will we find another colleague urging us past the meagre bounds of data collection, with the ideas and skills to carry it through? Certainly there is no one here at present and the plan not to replace her will be sorely felt. The additional departures of Kathleen and Jenny follow a pattern that is all too familiar. Commitments to people and programs are on most tenuous ground while management gropes without direction. Purpose- less programs take root without re-examination while projects of true import collect dust on the shelves. Policy arises by default, not as a product of initiative and innovation. There does appear to be a degree of seriousness that is new to the situation. The level of frustration in the division is at a new high, with little hope for relief. The 59 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD forces of stagnation may be finally and completely victorious. THE DIVISION TALKS TURKEY APPENDIX F NOTICE To EMPLOYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government After a hearing in which all parties were represented and afforded the opportunity to present evidence, it has been found that we have violated the National Labor Relations Act in certain respects and we have been ordered to post this notice and to carry out its terms. WE WILL NOT discharge or otherwise discriminate against employees because they engage in concerted activity protected by Section 7 of the Act. WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act. WE WILL offer immediate and full reinstatement to Paul Von Ebers and Mitchell Jonathan Arlook to their former jobs or, if such jobs no longer exist, to substantially equivalent positions of employment and WE WILL make them whole for any loss of wages or benefits suffered by them as a result of the discrimina- tion against them with interest at the rate of 6 percent per annum. AMERICAN HosPrrITAL AssocnTION 60