Which one of the following statements about why many individuals oppose integrity tests is FALSE

Page 2

Ee unaware of policy , since E was not objecting to Ee's participation in unemployment hearing, a section 7 right, but to Ee holding herself out as

supervisor) American Transfer, Inc.

288 NLRB No. 152 6090-2800 Participation in boycott of goods or services Geo. A. Hormel & Company

CDO 301 NLRB No. 12 (Ee's preparation and distribution of leaflet stating that only complete job restoration for strikers on preferential hiring list through fair contract would end boycott of E's product, protecteed concerted activity, where contract had been negotiated but not ratified, since Ees were free at that time to express their opinions for consideration of other Ees as to whether negotiat

ed contract should be ratified) Geo. A. Hormel & Company

CDO 301 NLRB No. 12 (E's informing Ee who had asserted that he was just driving through town that there was evidence that Ee had participated in parade and rally supporting boycott of E's product did not thereby inform Ee that E had engaged in surveillance of his U activities; E had videotaped parade which was legal in view of strike settlement agreement explicitly prohibited Ees from engaging

in any boycott activities] Ramey Supermarkets, et al.

292 NLRB No. 100 (in accord with Jean Country, 291 NLRB No. 4, clarifying Bd's approach in U access case, Bd held U's handbilling at retail stores in support of its primary economic dispute with stores' 'supplier constituted type of struck product consumer handbilling which was Sec. 7 activity worthy of protection against substantial impairment, where handbilling did not interfere sig. nificantly with ingress or egress at stores, involved rasonable number of handbillers, and was peaceful with no Ees or customers being harassed or

having deliveries obstructed] Ramey Supermarkets, et al.

292 NLRB No. 100 (U engaged in handbilling at Es' stores in support of its economic primary dispute with supplier of procuct to Es' stores held not to have feasible alternative to direct contact with stores' customers by mass media advertising campaign through mewspapers, radio, and television, where U did not seek to boycott entire product but directed its message at particular supplier and not at all suppliers in area, supplier of product was not readily identifiable on store shelf, and use of mass media might have enmeshed neutral

suppliers in U's boycott) Ramey Supermarkets, et al.

292 NLRB No. 100 (U engaged in handbilling at Es' stores in support of its economic primary dispute with supplier of product to Es' stores held not to have feasible alternative to direct contact with stores' customers by means of picket signs in view of detailed nature of U's message seeking to persuade potential customers not to purchase supplier's product which could not be contained

on a picket sign) Ramey Supermarkets, et al.

292 NLRB No. 100 (U engaged in handbilling at Es' stores in support of its economic primary dispute with supplier of procuct to Es' stores held not to have feasible alternative to direct contact with stores' customers by handbilling from public property at stores' parking lot entrances, since confining handbillers to public property at perimeter of premises would unduly diminish U's right to communicate its product boycott message in view of ineffectiveness of handbilling at parking lot entrances and traffic congestion and safety hazards

resulting therefrom] Ramey Supermarkets, et al.

292 NLRB No. 100 (Es operating stores at different locations unlawfully refused to permit handbilling by U at their facilities in support of U's product boycott directed against Es' supplier, where impairment of Es' leasehold property interests in stores, sidewalks, and parking lots would not be substantial in light of U's unobtrusive handbilling and Es’ opening of their premises to public; by contrast, absent reasonable alternative means of communication and without entry on Es' property, U's Sec. 7 right would be severely impaired or

substantially destroyed, and thus outweighed Es' private property rights) 6090-3200 Wearing or otherwise displaying union insignia,

signs, or other symbols of protest Control Services, Inc.

303 NLRB No. 83 (E violated 8(a)(1) of Act by telling Ees that they had to remove U insignia if they wanted to work since Ees have protected right to wear U insignia at work absent a showing of special circumstances such as adverse impact on production or discipline that might result from the exercise of that right; a desire to please a customer does not, alone, provide a business justification

for infringing Ees' statutory right) Pepsi Cola Bottling Company, Inc. of

SCO 301 NLRB No. 117 Norton (E violated 8(a)(1) of Act where E's vice president told Ee to remove U badge from his uniform and not to wear it on his E uniform again, since he did not give Ee any business reason for requiring removal of U badge, nor was one given at hearing before ALJ]

Albertsons, Inc.

CDO 300 NLRB No. 142 [E's prohibiting wearing of U insignia buttons on selling floor of its store, unlawful, since wearing of buttons in working area was protected, where

button was nickel sized with U logo which bore no consumer appeal] Boise Cascade Corporation

SCD 300 NLRB No. 13 (violation for E to ban Ee from wearing button supporting strike against another nearby E, as ban was an unlawful infringement of protected Ee rights and no special circumstances justified ban, since by wearing button Ee was making common cause with those Ees in their dispute against other E, and is protected even though it relates to working conditions of Ees of

another E] Boise Cascade Corporation

SCD 300 NLRB No. 13 [ban on wearing pin in support of sister local's dispute with nearby E is violation of Act even though E later told U that pin could be worn, since E then suggested there might be safety problems with wearing pin in production area when in fact all sorts of pins were worn there, E never told Ee who had worn pin that he could resume wearing it, and it wasn't until hearing in this case that E made it clear that it had no objection to wearing of pin; therefore alleged repudiation of ban was not unambiguous, specific,

timely or adequately communicated to Ees, and thus it was not effective] Boise Cascade Corporation

SCD 300 NLRB No. 13 (violation for E to prohibit its Ees from wearing or displaying in its plant stickers, buttons and T-shirts with messages pretaining to strike at another nearby E, since E was not able to prove special circumstances to support ban on materials whose message was protected activity aimed at making

common cause with Ees on strike at other E] Roadway Package System, Inc.

CDR 299 NLRB No. 60 Reynolds Electrical & Engineering Co.,

292 NLRB No. 104 Inc. (promulgation and enforcement of rule prohibiting wearing of buttons containing red line drawn diagonally through word scab, not violative, in view of numerous hostile acts by strikers against nonstrikers during and continuing after strike including verbal abuse, vandalizing autos, firing shots into a home, threats of personal injury, and threats to drive nonstrikers from their jobs; no U animus on part of E, and most importantly, both before and after

strike, E permitted the wearing of all other types of U insignia) Nemacolin Country Club

291 NLRB No. 78 (E's directing Ee to remove U insignia button from uniform, unlawful, where E had no formal rule regulating uniform appearance, E had in past permitted other types of uniform adornments, and there was no showing of

special circumstances justifying E's conduct) U.S. Postal Service (Peoria, Illinois)

JD(SF)-135-87 (supervisor ordering Ees to remove pictures from clothings depicting toilet seats, and earrings in shape of such fixture, which Ees were wearing to protest restroom access restrictions, unlawful, notwithstanding E's contention that such display generated discord, offended public decency, was not in accord with E's standards of appearance and personal behavior, and fact that insignia was not promoting unionization, where E had permitted wearing of other legends that could be regarded as more offensive, but which did not involve working conditions, inasmuch as Ees had Sec. 7 right to wear

insignia protesting restrictions) N.L.R.B. v. Delta Gas, Inc.

840 F. 2d 309 (C.A. 5, March

1988) (denying supervisor and Ees wage increase, unlawful, since E took such action because of their protected activities, where they wore U buttons, testified against E in prior ULP hearing, were plaintiffs in FLSA overtime suit against E, and were otherwise active in U organizing efforts to which E

was openly hostile) 6090-3400 Discussing wages Imaging and Sensing Technology Corp.

DOR 302 NLRB No. 86 (discharge of Ee for openly disagreeing with management's assertion at regularly scheduled E-Ee meeting that pay was not the cause of low productivity, violative, since discharge based on E's concern that Ee's remarks might have on other Ees; contention that Ee was speaking as individual and

registering personal complaint, rejected] Pepsi Cola Bottling Company, Inc. of

SCO 301 NLRB No. 117 Norton (verbal correction report which was a disciplinary action carrying an implied warning of further disciplinary action if Ee again talked to fellow Ees about their employment status with E held violative of 8(a)(1) and (3) of Act since E's vice president, who otherwise had demonstrated hostility to U, referred to U activity in his remarks to Ee prior to issuance of verbal correction report, and this evidenced E's intent to impede Ee's organizing efforts by prohibiting him from talking to Ees about E's employment po

lices) Pepsi Cola Bottling Company, Inc. of

SCO 301 NLRB No. 117 Norton (E violated 8(a)(1) of Act by prohibiting Ee from talking with fellow Ees about their employment with E or discussing any aspect of the relationship between E and any other Ee, since Sec. 7 of Act extends protection to Ees'