Extract
Amcar Division, 1056 (1980)
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Amcar Division, ACF Industries, Incorporated and Ronald Buckingham. Case 14-CA- 11918February 14, 1980 DECISION AND ORDERBY CHAIRMAN FANNING AND MEMBERS JENKINSAND TRUESDALEOn June 11, 1979, Administrative Law Judge Marvin Roth issued the attached Decision in this proceeding. Thereafter, the General Counsel filed exceptions and a supporting brief, and Respondent filed an answering brief in response to the General Counsel's exceptions.Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated its authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.The Board has considered the record and attached Decision in light of the exceptions and briefs and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings, and conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge only to the extent consistent herewith.The complaint alleges Respondent violated Section 8(a)(l) of the Act by informing its production and maintenance employees, other than maintenance electrician employees, that they would be in violation of a no-strike clause and would be counted as absent if they honored a picket line established by maintenance electricians represented by International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local No. I (IBEW); violated Section 8(a)(3) and () of the Act by charging certain named employees and other unnamed employees with unexcused absences, which may form the basis of future disciplinary action, because they refused to cross the IBEW picket line; and violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) by discharging 4 employees and giving disciplinary layoffs to 20 employees, because they refused to cross the maintenance electricians' picket line.' Brotherhood of Railway Carmen of the United States and Canada, Lodge No 365. AFL-CIO-CLC International Brotherhood f Boilermakers. Iron Ship Builders, Blacksmiths Forgers and Helpers, Local No 27. AFL-CIO;International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers. District No.9, AFL-CIO: International Brotherhood of Firemen, Oilers and Maintenance Men. Local No. 6, AFL-CIO; and International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers. Local No. 1, AFL-CIO (herein respectively called Carmen Lodge 365, Boilermakers Local 27, Machinists District 9. Firemen Local 6, and IBEW Local 1. and collectively called the Union), are the joint collectivebargaining representatives, in a single bargaining unit. of Respondent's production and maintenance employees at the AMCAR plant IBEW Local I is also the collective-bargaining representative for a separate unit of maintenance electrician employees at the AMCAR facility.: Southern Greyhound Linte, Division of Greyhound Lines. Inc.. 169 NLRB 627 (1968), enfd. 426 F.2d 1299 (5th Cir. 1970).Mastro Plastics Corp. and Irench-lmerican Reeds Mfg. Co.. Inc. v.N.L.R.B.. 350 U.S. 270 (1956): The inmken Roller Bearing Company v.247 NLRB No. 138The Administrative Law Judge found that the Union' waived the right of the unit employees to engage in sympathy strikes or to honor the picket lines of other unions establishing picket lines at the AMCAR plant and dismissed the complaint in its entirety.He further found that, assuming arguendo the Union did not waive these rights, those allegations of the complaint alleging discriminatory action against individual employees should still be dismissed on the ground that Respondent had no knowledge or reason to believe that any alleged discriminatee was engaged in union or other concerted activity protected by the Act.The General Counsel excepts, contending that the Administrative Law Judge erred in finding a waiver of the production and maintenance unit employees' right to engage in sympathy strikes or refusals to cross other unions' picket lines and further erred in finding that Respondent did not engage in discriminatory conduct against any of the individual discriminatees. We agree with the General Counsel.The right to strike, including the right to engage in sympathy strikes or in refusals to cross other unions' picket lines, is a right guaranteed by the Act.` The right may be waived by appropriate provisions in a collective-bargaining agreement. However, the Board and the courts have consistently ruled that, as with other statutory rights, such waivers will not be readily inferred-such a waiver must be clear and unmistakable.' Contractual waiver of the right to engage in sympathy strikes or to honor the picket lines of other unions will only be found if such an intent is embodied expressly in the parties' collective-bargaining agreement or is clearly evident from the parties' bargaining history.4The no-strike provision in the Union and Respondent's collective-bargaining agreement does not expressly refer to sympathy strikes or to refusals to cross other unions' picket lines: the Administrative Law Judge correctly found that a waiver cannot be found from the express language of the parties' col...See the full content of this document
Sponsored links
