> There's a case history in the Advice Memo. They didn't make this up just for Google.
There is indeed a case history, and it is very informative with regards to, as you put it, the Board's deference to employers. The Advice memo states "Where an employee's conduct significantly disrupts work processes, creates a hostile work environment, or constitutes racial or sexual discrimination or harassment, the Board has found it unprotected even if it involves concerted activities regarding working conditions. For example, in /Avondale Industries/, the Board held that the employer lawfully discharged a union activist for insubordination based on her unfounded assertion that her foreman was a Klansman; the employer was justifiably concerned about the disruption her remark would cause in the workplace among her fellow African-American employees."
Said case acknowledges that "Foreman Toledo has numerous tattoos on his body, including a swastika on his forearm"! Nonetheless, the Board found in that case that it was the employee's remark that would cause disruption in the workplace, apparently because she accused her foreman of being a Klansman (which she claims he told a group of employees) instead of a Nazi.
There is indeed a case history, and it is very informative with regards to, as you put it, the Board's deference to employers. The Advice memo states "Where an employee's conduct significantly disrupts work processes, creates a hostile work environment, or constitutes racial or sexual discrimination or harassment, the Board has found it unprotected even if it involves concerted activities regarding working conditions. For example, in /Avondale Industries/, the Board held that the employer lawfully discharged a union activist for insubordination based on her unfounded assertion that her foreman was a Klansman; the employer was justifiably concerned about the disruption her remark would cause in the workplace among her fellow African-American employees."
Said case acknowledges that "Foreman Toledo has numerous tattoos on his body, including a swastika on his forearm"! Nonetheless, the Board found in that case that it was the employee's remark that would cause disruption in the workplace, apparently because she accused her foreman of being a Klansman (which she claims he told a group of employees) instead of a Nazi.