Army and Air Force Exchange Service, Fort Drum Exchange, Fort Drum, New York and American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO (Authority decision, June 10, 1991)

Fort Drum union button (FLRA 1-CA-00086): Employee may wear union insignia on duty

Decision type
Authority decision
Docket
1-CA-00086
Decided
June 10, 1991
Outcome
Upheld
Precedential status
Citable Authority precedent
Checked against source
2026-10-03

Apply this precedent to your situation

This is citable Authority precedent from 1991, and it may have been appealed since. Ezel checks how it stands today and answers your situation, with citations.

Currency note: this decision dates from 1991
The federal labor-relations law may have been amended, and later Authority or court decisions may have changed the analysis since then. Treat this page as historical context, not current advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule mentioned here.
About this page: The plain-English summary and decision snapshot below were written by Ezel based on the official FLRA release. The full text is the agency's own release.
Read the official release (flra.gov)

Final FLRA decision. The Authority adopts the judge’s unfair labor practice finding and orders the exchange to allow the union button and post a notice. An aggrieved person may seek judicial review of this final order in an appropriate United States court of appeals within 60 days after issuance under 5 U.S.C. § 7123(a). A petition does not stay the order unless the court orders a stay under § 7123(c).

Plain-English summary

Fort Drum Exchange prohibited a mobile sales associate from wearing an “AFGE UNITY IS POWER” button on his uniform during duty hours. An administrative law judge found that the ban interfered with employee rights under the federal labor statute. The Exchange excepted to that decision, arguing that its need for a uniform public image justified the rule. The Authority adopted the judge’s findings and rejected that justification because the Exchange had not established special circumstances requiring uniformity. It ordered the Exchange to permit the button or similar union insignia and post a notice.

Decision snapshot

  • Authority: Employee rights and unfair labor practices under 5 U.S.C. § 7116(a)(1).
  • Outcome: Judge’s unfair labor practice finding adopted; button permitted and notice ordered.
  • Key point: The Exchange did not show special circumstances that justified banning the union button.

Full text (FLRA public release)

[ v41 p85 ]

41:0085(11)CA

The decision of the Authority follows:

41 FLRA No. 11

FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY

WASHINGTON, D.C.

ARMY AND AIR FORCE EXCHANGE SERVICE

FORT DRUM EXCHANGE

FORT DRUM, NEW YORK

(Respondent)

and

AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO

(Charging Party/Union)

1-CA-00086

DECISION AND ORDER

June 10, 1991

Before Chairman McKee and Members Talkin and Armendariz.

I. Statement of the Case

The Administrative Law Judge issued the attached decision in the above-entitled proceeding finding that the Respondent violated section 7116(a)(1) of the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute (the Statute) by prohibiting a bargaining unit employee from wearing a Union button on his uniform during duty hours. The Respondent filed exceptions to the Judge's decision and the General Counsel filed an opposition to the exceptions.

Pursuant to section 2423.29 of the Authority's Rules and Regulations, we have reviewed the rulings of the Judge and find that no prejudicial error was committed. On consideration of the entire record, we adopt the Judge's findings, conclusions and recommended Order. See U.S. Department of Justice, Immigration and Naturalization Service, United States Border Patrol, San Diego Sector, San Diego, California, 38 FLRA 701 (1990) (INS), petition for review filed sub nom. Immigration and Naturalization Service v. FLRA, No. 91-70078 (9th Cir. Jan. 28, 1991). See also U.S. Department of Justice, Immigration and Naturalization Service, Border Patrol, El Paso, Texas, 38 FLRA 1256 (1991), petition for review filed sub nom. Immigration and Naturalization Service v. FLRA, No. 91-4153 (5th Cir. Feb. 28, 1991).(*)

II. Order

Pursuant to section 2423.29 of the Authority's Rules and Regulations and section 7118 of the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute, the Army and Air Force Exchange Service, Fort Drum Exchange, Fort Drum, New York, shall:

  1. Cease and desist from:

(a) Interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees by prohibiting mobile sales associates or similarly situated employees from wearing the "AFGE UNITY IS POWER" button or similar Union insignia while on duty.

(b) In any like or related manner, interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of their rights assured by the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute.

  1. Take the following affirmative action in order to
    effectuate the purposes and policies of the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute:

(a) Permit mobile sales associates and similarly situated employees to wear the "AFGE UNITY IS POWER" button or similar union insignia while on duty.

(b) Post at its facilities copies of the attached Notice on forms to be furnished by the Federal Labor Relations Authority. Upon receipt of such forms, they shall be signed by the Respondent's Chief Executive and shall be posted and maintained for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all bulletin boards and other places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken to ensure that such Notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.

(c) Pursuant to section 2423.30 of the Authority's Rules and Regulations, notify the Regional Director, Boston Regional Office, Federal Labor Relations Authority, in writing, within 30 days of the date of this Order, as to what steps have been taken to comply.

NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES

AS ORDERED BY THE FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY

AND TO EFFECTUATE THE POLICIES OF THE

FEDERAL SERVICE LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS STATUTE

WE HEREBY NOTIFY OUR EMPLOYEES THAT:

WE WILL NOT interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees by prohibiting mobile sales associates or similarly situated employees from wearing the "AFGE UNITY IS POWER" button or similar Union insignia while on duty.

WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner, interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of their rights assured by the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute.

WE WILL permit mobile sales associates and similarly situated employees to wear the "AFGE UNITY IS POWER" button or similar union insignia while on duty.

(Activity)

Dated: By:

(Signature) (Title)

This Notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting and must not be altered, defaced or covered by any other material.

If employees have any questions concerning this Notice or compliance with any of its provisions, they may communicate directly with the Regional Director, Boston Regional Office, Federal Labor Relations Authority, whose address is: 10 Causeway Street, Room 1017A, Boston, MA 02222-1046, and whose telephone number is: (617) 565-7280.

FOOTNOTES:

(If blank, the decision does not have footnotes.)

*/
In particular, we reject the Respondent's reliance on Burger King Corp. v. National Labor Relations Board, 725 F.2d 1053 (6th Cir. 1984) (Burger King), which was cited by the Authority in INS as an example of a case in which special circumstances had been found to justify a prohibition on the wearing of union insignia. As noted in INS, the employer in Burger King, "a nationally operated enterprise, derived much of its recognition from its uniform public image, and consequently, there was a need for uniformity[.]" 38 FLRA at

  1. See also Burger King, 725 F.2d at 1055 (court found that
    "special circumstances" justified the employer's ban on union insignia because, in part, the employer was "a national fast food chain deriving much of its recognition from its uniform public image."). In this case, the Judge found, and we agree, that the Respondent did not establish such special circumstances or need for uniformity.

Does this precedent still control your case?

Ezel checks whether it still stands, including any court review since, and applies it to your situation with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace