## Facts

- Trans World Airlines, Inc. (TWA) maintained detailed appearance rules for flight attendants, including a hair-length requirement and a prohibition on using wigs to evade that requirement (while permitting wigs for appearance if underlying hair complied).
- A flight attendant was suspected by a supervisor of violating the hair-length rule and possibly wearing a wig to conceal noncompliance.
- During a grooming inspection on February 15, 1964, the supervisor asked whether the flight attendant was wearing a wig; she denied it.
- The supervisor then directed the flight attendant to lift/manipulate her hair so the supervisor could verify compliance; the flight attendant refused.
- Two days later, management again sought verification in a similar manner; the flight attendant again refused.
- The flight attendant later failed to appear when summoned for inspection.
- TWA discharged the flight attendant for willful insubordination based on her refusals and failure to report for inspection.
- The flight attendant filed (1) a harassment grievance alleging repeated inspection demands and (2) a discharge grievance contesting the termination as unjust.

## Issues

1. Whether an employer with a clear and reasonable grooming rule may require an employee to cooperate in reasonable verification measures to confirm compliance.
2. Whether the employee’s repeated refusal to cooperate with verification and failure to appear for inspection constituted insubordination warranting discharge under just-cause standards.
3. Whether repeated inspection demands in these circumstances amounted to harassment under the collective bargaining agreement.

## Decision

- The System Board of Adjustment upheld TWA’s authority to enforce a clear and reasonable hair-length rule and to require reasonable verification of compliance through inspection.
- The Board rejected the claim that repeated inspection demands, made to enforce the rule, constituted harassment.
- The Board found discipline was warranted for the employee’s refusal to comply with inspection-related directives and failure to appear when summoned.
- The Board reduced the penalty from discharge to reinstatement without back pay, treating the loss of pay as sufficient discipline under the circumstances.

## Legal Principles

- When a grooming/appearance rule is clear and reasonable, management may take reasonable steps to verify employee compliance, including inspections related to the rule.
- The right to promulgate a valid rule includes authority to enforce it through verification procedures that are reasonably related to the compliance question.
- Just cause requires proportionality between misconduct and penalty; discharge may be reduced where mitigating factors show the employee acted from a good-faith belief that an order was improper.
- An employee’s refusal to obey a reasonable, job-related directive may constitute insubordination, but mitigation may be appropriate when the directive implicates personal dignity and the employee’s objection is in good faith.

## Conclusion

The Board sustained management’s right to inspect and require cooperation to verify compliance with a reasonable grooming rule, rejected the harassment grievance, and ordered reinstatement without back pay after concluding discharge was excessive given mitigating circumstances surrounding the employee’s refusal.


In re Trans World Airlines, Inc., 46 Lab. Arb. Rep. (BNA) 611 (Sys. Bd. of Adjustment 1965)