Labor Law

Elements for a § 8(a)(1) ULP Violation

(1) The employee's actions were concerted, (2) The employer knew of the concerted nature of the employee's actions, (3) The concerted activity was protected by the Act, and (4) The adverse employment action was motivated by the employee's protected concerted activity.

★★★ United Steelworkers of America v. Enterprise Wheel & Car Corp. ★★★

- A group of employees left their jobs in protest against the discharge of one employee; Employer said they no longer had jobs; Arbitrator said discharge was improper; Employer refused to comply. - The refusal of courts to review the merits of an arbitration award is the proper approach to arbitration under collective bargaining agreements. - It is the arbitrator's construction which was bargained for; and so far as the arbitrator's decision concerns construction of the contract, the courts have no business overruling him because their interpretation of the contract is different from his.

Textile Wkrs. Union v. Lincoln Mils of Alabama

- A union entered into a CBA with an employer providing that there would be no strikes or work stoppages and that grievances would be handled pursuant to a specified procedure, the last step of which was arbitration; Employer refused arbitration after Union exhausted grievance procedure process. - § 301 authorizes federal courts to fashion a body of federal law for the enforcement of these collective bargaining agreements and includes within that federal law specific performance of promises to arbitrate grievances under collective bargaining agreements. - The agreement to arbitrate grievance disputes is the quid pro quo for an agreement not to strike.

American Ship Building Co.

- After a bargaining impasse was reached, petitioner temporarily closed down one shipyard and laid off employees at the others. - An employer does not commit an ULP under either § 8(a)(1) or § 8(a)(3) of the Act when, after an impasse has been reached in negotiations, he temporarily shuts down his plant and lays off his employees for the sole purpose of applying economic pressure in support of his legitimate bargaining position. - There is nothing in the statute which would imply that the right to strike 'carries with it' the right exclusively to determine the timing and duration of all work stoppages.

Brown

- After the union struck another member of the bargaining group, Respondents locked out their employees and utilized temporary replacements to continue business operations. - Respondents' continued operations with the use of temporary employees after the lockout was wholly consistent with a legitimate business purpose. - To limit the respondents to the use of regular employees under the circumstances here present would be to render largely illusory the right of lockout.

Barton Brands, Ltd.

- Barton and employees voted in favor of dovetailing and amended CBA; then Barton switched and agreed that the employees seniority would be endtailed. - A union violates § 8(b)(2) when it causes an employer to discriminate against employees on arbitrary, hostile or bad faith grounds since such conduct causes or tends to result in unlawful encouragement of union activity. - The Union acted solely on grounds of political expediency in reducing the former Glencoe employees' seniority.

Boys Markets, Inc. v. Retail Clerks Union, Local 770

- CBA called for arbitration and no work stoppage, lockout, picketing, or boycotts during the life of the contract; Union called strike; Employer sought injunction. - Where the grievance was subject to arbitration under the collective bargaining agreement and Union violates a no-strike clause causing irreparable injury to Employer, the Norris-LaGuardia Act does not bar the granting of injunctive relief.

Local 1229, IBEW (Jefferson Standard Broad. Co.)

- Company discharged ten of its technicians whom it charged with sponsoring or distributing these handbills; handbills made no reference to the union, to a labor controversy, or to collective bargaining. - The distribution by employees of handbills which make disparaging attacks upon the employer, but which have no discernible relation to a pending labor controversy, is adequate cause for the discharge of employees.

Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Independent Fed'n of Flight Attendants

- During a strike, TWA continued operations by hiring permanent replacements for strikers; TWA then refused to displace permanent replacements or junior non-striking attendants ("crossover" employees) with senior full-term strikers. - An employer is not required by the RLA to lay off junior crossover employees in order to reinstate more senior full-term strikers at the conclusion of a strike.

J. Weingarten, Inc.

- During an investigatory interview, employee asked for but was denied the presence at the interview of her union representative. - "An employee's right to union representation upon request is based on Section 7 of the Act, which guarantees the right of employees to act in concert for 'mutual aid and protection.' - The representative's presence is an assurance to other employees in the bargaining unit that they, too, can obtain his aid and protection if called upon to attend a like interview. - Concerted activity for mutual aid or protection is therefore present here.

Eastern Associated Coal Corp. v UMW, District 17

- Employee tested positive for marijuana use twice, Eastern sought to discharge him; Arbitrator found this was not just cause to discharge; Eastern filed suit to vacate the arbitrator's award. - The public policy exception to enforcing an arbitrator's award is narrow; thus, the public policy must be "explicit, well-defined, and dominant," and must be ascertained "by reference to positive law and not from general considerations of supposed public interests."

★★★ Republic Aviation Corp. ★★★

- Employee was discharged for passing out union membership cards on his own time; other employees were discharged for wearing union buttons. - If a rule against solicitation is invalid as to union solicitation on the employer's premises during the employee's own time, a discharge because of violation of that rule discriminates within the meaning of Section 8(3) in that it discourages membership in a labor organization.

★★★ Mackay Radio & Telegraph ★★★

- Employees of a company went on a strike after negotiations with Employer failed; Employer failed to reinstate five employees; Employees claimed discrimination based on union activity. - Strikers retain the status of employees, under the Act, and any such discrimination in putting them back to work is, therefore, prohibited by § 8. - However, it was not an unfair labor practice for the company to replace its striking employees with others in an effort to carry on the business; nor was the company bound later to discharge such others in order to reinstate the strikers.

Eastex, Inc.

- Employees of petitioner corporation sought to distribute a four-part union newsletter in non-working areas of petitioner's plant during non-working time. - Employees do not lose their protection under the "mutual aid or protection" clause when they seek to improve terms and conditions of employment or otherwise improve their lot as employees through channels outside the immediate employee-employer relationship. - Employees are still protected when they engage in otherwise proper concerted activities in support of employees of employers other than their own, and it has long been held that "mutual aid or protection" encompasses such activity.

Orchard Park Health Care Center, Inc.

- Employees suspended and fired for reporting excessive heat in nursing home. - Here, Reed and Gunnersen's call to the State health department hotline did not involve a term or condition of their employment and was not otherwise an effort to "improve their lot as employees."

Shop Rite Foods, Inc.

- Employees walked out in protest against that discharge of an apparently guilty employee; employer denied reinstatement. - The union had not made a challenge of the discharge an "established objective" and had not approved the strike, thus the walkout was unprotected.

★★★ Great Dane Trailers ★★★

- Employees went on strike; demanded vacation pay; Employer refused on the ground that the strike had terminated all contractual obligations; then offered to grant vacation pay to employees who returned to work. - If it can reasonably be concluded that the employer's discriminatory conduct was "inherently destructive" of important employee rights, no proof of anti-union motivation is needed, and the Board can find an unfair labor practice despite employer evidence of business justifications. - However, if the adverse effect of the discrimination on employee rights is "comparatively slight," an anti-union motivation must be proved if the employer has come forward with evidence of legitimate and substantial business justifications for the conduct.

Emporium Capwell Co. v. Western Addition Cmty. Org.

- Employees who felt that Company's grievance procedure was inadequate picketed the company's store against the union's advice regarding racial discrimination. - the NLRA does not protect concerted activity by minority employees to bargain with their employer, thus bypassing their exclusive bargaining representative. - Here, the grievance procedure of the collective bargaining agreement was directed precisely at determining whether such discriminatory practices had occurred.

M.J. Metal Products, Inc.

- Employer committed ULPs and unlawfully discharged four employees in bargaining unit. - "When the antiunion message is so clearly communicated by the words and deeds of the highest levels of management, it is highly coercive and unlikely to be forgotten." - This conduct by the Respondent sent employees "the unequivocal message that it was willing to go to extraordinary lengths in order to extinguish the union organizational effort.

Timekeeping Systems, Inc.

- Employer discharged employee for sending out an company wide email criticizing proposed changes to incentive bonus and vacation policy. - Leinweber's e-mail to Markwitz, with transmission to the other employees, was, in and of itself, concerted activity. - The evidence here shows that the concertedness of Leinweber's conduct also very likely infected Markwitz' decision to discharge.

Midland National Life Ins. Co.

- Employer distributed campaign literature to its employees with their paychecks the day before election; literature contained a portion of Petitioner's financial report. - Where, due to forgery, no voter could recognize the propaganda "for what it is," Board intervention is warranted." - Courts will intervene in cases where a party has used forged documents which render the voters unable to recognize propaganda for what it is.

Textile Wkrs. Union v. Darlington Mfg. Co.

- Employer liquidated and closed company after organizational campaign by petitioner union was successful. - It is not an unfair labor practice for an employer to close his entire business, even if the closing is due to anti-union animus. - However, an employer may not close part of his business, if the purpose is to discourage unionism in any of the employer's remaining plants and if the employer may reasonably have foreseen such effect.

★★★ General Shoe Corp. ★★★

- Employer made "vigorously disparaging pre-election statements" about the union. - "...Conduct that creates an atmosphere which renders improbable a free choice will sometimes warrant invalidating an election, even though that conduct may not constitute an unfair labor practice." - Although the respondent's activities immediately before the election...are not held to constitute unfair labor practices[,] certain of them created an atmosphere calculated to prevent a free and untrammeled choice by the employees...

★★★ Babcock & Wilcox Co. ★★★

- Employer refused to permit distribution of union literature by non-employee union organizers on company-owned parking lots. - An employer may validly protect his property against non-employee distribution of union literature, if reasonable efforts by the union through other available channels of communication will enable it to reach the employees with its message and if the employer's notice or order does not discriminate against the union by allowing other distribution. - Employer has no obligation to allow non-employee union organizers access to company property, unless the location of a plant and the living quarters of the employees place the employees beyond their reach.

Golub Corp.

- Employer sent letters and made speeches to employees his thoughts about the effects of unionization would have on the company. - An employer is free to tell his employees what he reasonably believes will be the likely economic consequences of unionization that are outside his control, as distinguished from threats of economic reprisal to be taken solely on his own volition.

Safeway Stores, Inc.

- Grievant was discharged for "proven dishonesty" after he was convicted and sentenced for burglary. - Where an employee's conviction of crime impairs his usefulness to the employer or is likely to affect adversely the employer's business, the employer is entitled to take cognizance of the conviction by the way of suspension or discharge. - Such an offense as that committed by the grievant warranted discharge under the plain...words chosen by the parties to express their agreement.

Grief Bros. Cooperage Corp.

- Grievant was discharged without a proper investigation into whether the Foreman's disciplinary decision was reasonable. - Every accused employee in an industrial democracy has the right of "due process of law" and the right to be heard before discipline is administered. - The Foreman's behavior, including his post-discharge manhandling of the grievant, makes it impossible for the Arbitrator to rule that the discharge must "stick."

Gold Kist, Inc.

- Grievant was suspended for two weeks without pay based on a charge of misconduct involving vilification of the Company and its employees. - The leaflets involved here went beyond mere expression but encouraged violence. - The encouragement of assault made in the leaflets at issue are certainly not protected activities.

Ford Motor Co. v. Huffman

- Huffman contends that his position, and that of each member of his class, has been lowered on the seniority roster at Ford's Louisville works, because of certain provisions in collective-bargaining agreements between Ford and the Union. - Variations acceptable in the discretion of bargaining representatives may well include differences based upon such matters as the unit within which seniority is to be computed.

Search for Motive

- In Wright Line, the Board ruled that the General Counsel must first establish a prima facie case by proving that protected activity was a substantial or motivating factor in the discharge - If such showing is made and not rebutted, liability follows as a matter of course, unless the employer, by a preponderance of other evidence, proves that the discharge would have occurred even absent the employee's protected conduct. - Dual Motive = Apply Wright Line; Single Motive = Do Not Apply Wright Line

Kroger Co.

- Johnny Jennings, who had the greatest seniority of all the candidates, was passed up for a job vacancy, in which the CBA agreement, stated that the employee with the greatest seniority shall receive preference. - Nicholas Two-step analysis: 1) Is the grievant and the person who was actually awarded the job "reasonably equal" in terms of ability? 2) If so, the senior employee should receive preference and get the job if he acceptable to management. - Jennings was at least "reasonably equal" in ability to Sheppard, who received the promotion. - Additionally, there was an omission in the Company's process for evaluating the candidates.

Mastro Plastics Corp.

- No strike clause btwn Employer and Union; Union went on strike after Employer fired employee for supporting the Union. - No strike clause does not waive the employee's right to strike against the unfair labor practices. - Here, the strike was not to terminate or modify the contract but was to protest the unfair labor practices.

Mead Corp.

- On a Saturday, employees were called into work and after five hours of work, they were sent home; they were paid for that five hours; Employees requested time and a half based on past practice guarantee. - If either side should, during the negotiation of a later agreement, object to the continuation of a past practice, it can not be inferred from the signing of a new agreement that the parties intended the practice to remain in force. - While the Union did not consent to the discontinuance...it did consent to a new Contract which it knew did not expressly require the past practice guarantee and which it knew or clearly should have know did not impliedly require it.

City Disposal Systems, Inc.

- One of respondent's employees (James Brown) was discharged when he refused to drive a truck that he honestly and reasonably believed to be unsafe because of faulty brakes; Union declined to process Brown's grievance under the bargaining agreement. - As long as the nature of the employee's complaint is reasonably clear to the person to whom it is communicated, and the complaint in fact refers to a reasonably perceived violation of the collective bargaining agreement, the complaining employee is engaged in the process of enforcing that agreement.

Edward G. Budd Mfg. Co.

- Petitioner contends that Weigand was discharged because of cumulative grievances against him; Weigand contends he was was discharged for talking to the Union. - An employer may discharge an employee for a good reason, a poor reason or no reason at all so long as the provisions of the National Labor Relations Act are not violated. - Here, he was discharged because his work on behalf of the Union had become known to the plant manager.

Teamsters, Local 695 v. Vogt, Inc

- Petitioner picketed entrance to respondent's place of business with signs; as a result, drivers of several trucking companies refused to deliver and haul goods to and from respondent's plant, causing substantial damage to respondent. - A State, in enforcing some public policy, can constitutionally enjoin peaceful picketing aimed at preventing effectuation of that policy. - Here, the picketing was to coerce the employer to put pressure on his employees to join the union, in violation of the declared policy of the State.

Vaca v. Sipes

- Petitioners, union officials, were sued by a union member who alleged wrongful discharge by his employer in violation of the collective bargaining agreement and the union's arbitrary refusal to take his grievance to arbitration under the fifth and final step of the bargaining agreement's grievance procedures. - A Union does not breach the duty of fair representation merely because it settles a grievance short of arbitration. - If the individual employee could compel arbitration of his grievance regardless of its merits, the settlement machinery provided by the contract would be substantially undermined.

Exchange Parts Co.

- Prior to an election, employer sent letter to employees detailing the benefits granted by the company since 1949 and an estimate of the monetary value of such benefits to the employees. - An employer is not free to violate 8(a)(1) by conferring benefits which is undertaken with the express purpose of impinging upon their freedom of choice for or against unionization and is reasonably calculated to have that effect.

United Paperworkers Int'l Union v. Misco, Inc.

- Respondent discharged Cooper for marijuana incident; arbitrator ordered reinstatement holding Employer did not have just cause; District Court vacated arbitrator's decision. - A court's refusal to enforce an arbitrator's interpretation of a collective bargaining agreement is limited to situations where the contract, as interpreted, would violate "some explicit public policy." - As long as the arbitrator is even arguably construing or applying the contract and acting within the scope of his authority, the court cannot overturn his decision simply because it disagrees with his factual findings, contract interpretations, or choice of remedies.

Transportation Mgmt. Corp.

- Respondent discharged an employee, a bus driver, for his union activities, in violation of §§ 8(a)(1) and 8(a)(3) of the National Labor Relations Act. - Employer departed from its usual practice in dealing with rules infractions (No notice that his actions may be subject to discipline; never expressed disapproval of conduct) - Thus, employee would not have been fired even if the employer had not had an anti-union animus was "supported by substantial evidence on the record considered as a whole."

★★★ Republic Steel Corp. v. Maddox ★★★

- Respondent employee sued his employer for severance pay under a collective bargaining agreement existing between his union and employer, without using the company grievance procedures. - Unless the contract provides otherwise, there can be no doubt that the employee must afford the union the opportunity to act on his behalf. - Maddox' suit in the present case is simply on the contract, and the remedy sought, award of $694.08, did not differ from any that the grievance procedure had power to provide.

DeBartolo Corp. v. Florida Gulf Coast Bldg. & Constr. Trades Council

- Respondent union peacefully distributed handbills at the mall's entrances (but did not picket or otherwise patrol), urging customers not to shop at any of the mall's stores until petitioner promised that all mall construction would be done by contractors paying fair wages. - Section 8(b)(4) does not contain any clear expression of congressional intent to proscribe respondent's handbilling and other non-picketing consumer appeals.

★★★ Borg-Warner Controls ★★★

- The General Counsel contends that Respondent's conduct during negotiations shows that Respondent had no intention of reaching an agreement with the Union; Respondent contends that it was engaged in hard but lawful bargaining. - The obligation of the employer to bargain in good faith does not require the yielding of positions fairly maintained - However, rigid adherence to proposals, which are predictably unacceptable to the employee representative, may be considered in proper circumstances as evidencing a pre-determination not to reach agreement.

Fruit & Vegetable Packers, Local 760 (Tree Fruits)

- The Local 760 union picketed outside of 46 Safeway ("secondary employer") telling the public to not buy the apples, which were only one of numerous food products sold in the stores. - Peaceful secondary picketing of retail stores directed solely at appealing to consumers to refrain from buying the primary employer's product is not prohibited by § 8(b)(4). - Here, the picketing only persuaded customers to not buy the struck product (apples), so it was closely confined to the primary dispute and did not create a separate dispute with the secondary employer.

Rubbermaid Office Products, Inc.

- The Union field a grievance over the consequences of the Company's decision to close its plant and move the work performed there to a distant location; Company contended it was just subcontracting out the work. - The Company bears a burden to prove the existence of the subcontracting arrangement. - Only after the grievance was filed did the Company describe the plant closing as the consequence of a subcontracting.

Retail Store Employees Union, Local 1001 (Safeco Title Ins. Co.)

- The Union picketed each of the title companies, urging customers to support the strike by canceling their Safeco policies, when bargaining reached impasse. - When picketing coerces neutrals with the object of "forcing or requiring [them] to cease...dealing in the [primary] produc[t]...or to cease doing business with the primary employer, the picketing violates § 8(b)(4)(ii)(b). - Product picketing that reasonably can be expected to threaten neutral parties with ruin or substantial loss simply does not square with the language or the purpose of § 8(b)(4)(ii)(B).

Allis-Chalmers Mfg. Co.

- The Union protested the contracting out of certain janitorial work and the contracting out of work on power transformer components. - A labor agreement which contains no express prohibition against an employer's hiring an independent contractor for the performance of work formerly done by employees covered by the contract does not preclude the employer from hiring an independent contractor to do such work. - Past practice, as well as an unsuccessful attempt to negotiate specific restrictions into the contract, may be taken into consideration to determine the Company's freedom in the matter of subcontracting.

★★★ Steele v. Louisville & Nashville R.R. ★★★

- The Union, purporting to act as representative of the entire craft of firemen, amended the existing collective bargaining agreement in such manner as ultimately to exclude all Negro firemen from the service. - The RLA imposes on a labor organization the duty to represent all the employees in the craft without discrimination because of their race. - The Act expresses the aim of Congress to impose on the bargaining representative of a craft or class of employees the duty to exercise fairly the power conferred upon it in behalf of all those for whom it acts, without hostile discrimination against them.

Metropolitan Transit Authority

- The company discharged grievant for violating the rule against carrying prohibited weapons while on duty; Grievant contended the only reason he had the gun was to protect himself in a dangerous situation. - The company established strong justification for the rule against carrying a prohibited weapon while on duty and that discharge from employment is a reasonable penalty for first time violation of the rule. - The circumstances in this case are not sufficiently extenuating to justify setting aside the discharge.

Local 57, Int'l Ladies' Garment Union (Garwin Corp.)

- The employer closed its plant in New York City, discharged its employees, and moved operations to Miami, Florida, for the purpose of depriving the New York employees of rights guaranteed under Section 7 of the NLRA and to avoid dealing with the Union. - The right to choose a union and have that union operate in a climate free of coercion, is a cornerstone of the NLRA; equally protected by the Act with the right of the workers to choose that representative is the right to have none. - Here, the Board's remedy imposes on the Florida workers a bargaining representative without reference to their choice.

★★★ Local 174, Teamsters v. Lucas Flour Co. ★★★

- The employer discharged an employee for unsatisfactory work, and the union called a strike to force the employer to rehire him; CBA reserved to the employer the right to discharge any employee for unsatisfactory work and provided for compulsory, final and binding settlement by arbitration of any dispute between the employer and any employee. - Under federal labor law, a strike to settle a dispute which a collective bargaining agreement provides shall be settled exclusively and finally by compulsory arbitration constitutes a violation of the agreement, even when the agreement does not contain an explicit no-strike clause. - The grievance over which the union struck was, as it concedes, one which it had expressly agreed to settle by submission to final and binding arbitration proceedings.

New Hotel Showboat, Inc.

- The grievants here, two bar waitresses represented by the Culinary Union, were discharged without fault. - There is an implied limitation on an employer's discretion to discipline an employee when the agreement is silent or obscure on the subject; a standard of good or just cause must be met. - Unless an agreement states otherwise, an employer has no absolute right to discharge without fault.

Smitley

- The unions picketed the cafeteria for more than thirty days before filing a representation petition; the purpose of the picketing was truthfully to advise the public that petitioners employed non-union employees or had no contract with the unions; the picketing did not have the effect of inducing any stoppage of deliveries or services to the cafeteria by employees of any other employer. - Recognitional or organizational picketing may continue if it meets two important restrictions: (1) it must be addressed to the public and be truthful and (2) it must not induce other unions to stop deliveries or services.

NLRB Annual Report

- Threats of adverse economic consequences as well as appeals to racism were alleged as a basis for objections to the election in Universal Mfg. Corp. - Racial propaganda will not be tolerated unless the statements are "truthful, temperate, and germane to a party's position," and do not "deliberately seek to overstress and exacerbate racial feelings by irrelevant, inflammatory appeals. - The employees here were inhibited from freely exercising their choice in the election."

Burnup and Sims, Inc.

- Two employees were discharged after threatening to use dynamite while trying to organize the employees who worked with them. - § 8(a)(1) is violated if an employee is discharged for misconduct arising out of a protected activity, despite the employer's good faith, when it is shown that the misconduct never occurred. - Employees never used the dynamite, thus Employer's discharge of employees violated § 8(a)(1), even though employer acted in good faith.

★★★ Linden Lumber Div. Summer & Co. ★★★

- Two employers had refused to recognize unions with majority-card showings. - Unless an employer has engaged in an unfair labor practice that impairs the electoral process, a union with authorization cards purporting to represent a majority of the employees, which is refused recognition, has the burden of taking the next step in invoking the Board's election procedure. - It can file for an election or it can press unfair labor practice charges against the employer under Gissel.

★★★ Lechmere, Inc. ★★★

- Union alleged that Lechmere violated NLRA by barring the non-employee organizers from its property. - Section 7 does NOT protect non-employee union organizers, except in rare case where employees are inaccessible. - Here, because the employees did not reside on Lechmere's property, they were not "beyond the reach," of the union's message and could be contacted by alternative means (display a sign on the public grassy strip next to Lechmere parking lot)

★★★ Erie Resistor Corp. ★★★

- Union called strike in support of contract demands; company hired replacements; then company informed the union that it had decided to award 20 years' additional seniority both to replacements and to strikers who returned to work. - Super-seniority, by its very terms, operates to discriminate between strikers and non-strikers, both during and after a strike, and its destructive impact upon the strike and union activity cannot be doubted.

FMC Corp.

- Union claims that Management violated the Agreement by unilaterally install[ing] closed circuit television within the plant" for the purpose of observing employees. - A decision as to how employees are to be supervised and what are the proper methods of supervision is a normal function of Management. - Regardless of the type of supervision, the employee works with the knowledge that supervision may be watching him at any time. - No interference with employee's right of privacy.

★★★ Gissel Packing Co. ★★★

- Union gained majority status; requested Employer bargain with it; Employer questioned majority status; Employer refused to bargain; then embarked on anti-union campaign. - An employer is free to communicate to his employees any of his general views about unionism or any of his specific views about a particular union, so long as the communications do not contain a "threat of reprisal or force or promise of benefit." - Here, the intended message of the employer was not to predict that unionization would inevitably cause the plant to close but to threaten to throw employees out of work regardless of the economic realities.

★★★ Miranda Fuel Co. ★★★

- Union member began extended leave early; other employees complained; pressed the employer to drop that employee to the bottom of the seniority list; action not required by CBA. - A bargaining agent's breach of that duty, regardless of whether it was influenced by an employee's union activities, violates §7 and §8(b)(1)(a). - Dissent: Discrimination for reasons wholly unrelated to "union membership, loyalty, the acknowledgment of union authority, or the performance of union obligations," is not sufficient to support findings of violations of Sections 8(a)(3), 8(a)(1), 8(b)(2) and 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act.

Insurance Agents' Int'l Union

- Union used concerted on-the-job activities to put economic pressure on the employer to accede to the union's bargaining demands during negotiations. - The use of economic pressure is not a breach of the duty to bargaining in good faith. - Section 8(b)(3) does not authorize the Board to infer a lack of good faith in bargaining on the part of a union solely because the union resorts to tactics designed to exert economic pressure during the negotiations.

International Hod Carriers, Local 840

- Union was not the certified collective-bargaining representative; Union, however, demanded recognition, and picketed Blinne because of its refusal to yield to their demand. - It shall be an unfair labor practice for a labor organization or its agents--where such picketing has been conducted without a petition being filed within a reasonable period of time not to exceed thirty days from the commencement of such picketing. - Here, because such a petition was admittedly not filed until more than 30 days after the commencement of the picketing, we find that Respondent violated 8(b)(7)(C).

Local 833, UAW (Kohler Co.)

- Union's economic strike was converted to an unfair labor practice strike by virtue of Kohler's many and serious 8(a)(1), (3), and (5) violations. - Where an employer who has committed an unfair labor practices discharges for unprotected acts of misconduct, the Board must consider both the seriousness of the employer's unlawful acts and the seriousness of the employees' misconduct in determining whether reinstatement would effectuate the policies of the Act.

★★★ Gissel Packing Co. ★★★

- Unions obtained authorization cards; demanded recognition from Employer; Employer refused calling cards inherently unreliable. - The issuance of a bargaining order is an appropriate remedy where an employer who has rejected a card majority has committed unfair labor practices which have made the holding of a fair election unlikely, or which have undermined a union's majority, caused an election to be set aside, and made the holding of a fair rerun election unlikely. - An unambiguous authorization card will be counted unless it is proved that the employee was told that the card was to be used solely to obtain an election.

Portland Airport Limousine Co.

- Wayne Speed was fired for refusing to drive his tractor due to safety reasons, even after an inspection proved it was safe. - Speed's complaints "were made by himself and for himself alone, and thus cannot be deemed concerted."

★★★ Katz ★★★

- While bona fide contract negotiations with a union representing its employees were being carried on, the employer, unilaterally and without first consulting the union, put into effect a new system of automatic wage increases, changes in sick leave benefits, and numerous merit increases. - An employer's unilateral change in conditions of employment under negotiation violates § 8(a)(5), for it is a circumvention of the duty to negotiate. - Unilateral action by an employer without prior discussion with the union does amount to a refusal to negotiate.

Washington Aluminum Co.

- cold shop; employees complained then walked out; employer then discharged them. - The walkout involved here grew out of a "labor dispute" within the meaning of § 2(a) of the Act. - The fact that respondent had an established rule forbidding employees to leave their work without permission of the foreman was not justifiable "cause" for their discharge within the meaning of § 10(c).

Section 8(a)(3) ULP Violation

- discrimination in by Employer to encourage or discourage membership in any labor organization. - requirement is satisfied if antiunion sentiment, or animus, was a motivating factor in the challenged employer action. - the prohibition of employer discrimination against employees reaches all differential treatment based on "union activity."

Hispanics United of Buffalo, Inc.

- employer fired five employees for comments they posted on Facebook - Cole-Rivera's four coworkers made common cause with her, and, together, their actions were concerted within the definition of Meyers I, because they were undertaken "with...other employees." - The actions of the five employees were also concerted under the expanded definition of Meyers II, because, as the judge found, they "were taking a first step towards taking a group action to defend themselves against the accusations they could reasonably believe Cruz-Moore was going to make to management.

Yale University

- grad students refused to submit their students' final grades for the semester of the University, hoping their action would cause the University to begin negotiations toward a labor agreement. - The grade strike was unprotected because it was a partial strike and because the strikers had misappropriated university property.