Week 3

Case 1 – Let Me Keep My Job

The company owned and operated a rail system of over 9,000 miles in the states of Illinois, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, Michigan, Nebraska, South Dakota, North Dakota, and Wyoming.  These rail systems served as an integral part of the nationwide railway system in the transporting of passengers and freight in interstate commerce.  When the railroad was established, railroad stations were built 7 to 10 miles apart.  As might be expected, over the years, airplanes, trucks, automobiles, and barges reduced the demand for railroad traffic such that the work at some of these stations was less than one hour during a normal 8-hour day.  In 1957, the Company filed petitions with the public utility commissions in four of the nine states in which it operated asking permission to either centralize or abolish some of these stations.  Obviously, the plan would result in the loss of jobs for some employees including telegraphers. 

Weeks after the petitions were filed but before a decision could be made, the Union, duly certified and the acting collective bargaining agent of the railroad employees, notified the Company that it wanted to negotiate with the Company an amendment to the current labor agreement that no position in existence on December 3, 1957, would be abolished or discontinued except by mutual agreement.  When the Company refused, the Union began a strike.

The Company claimed that the Union had no labor dispute with them and therefore the Union had no legal protest with them.  Further, the Company was not willing, or allowed under law, to contract away any of its managerial duties.  It suggested that the Union appear before the state public utility commission if it was unhappy with the proposed changes.  Because the Union had not done this, the Company was asking for an injunction. 

The Union claimed that an injunction could not be issued because under the provisions of the Norris-LaGuardia Act, this case involved a labor dispute, and that the Company had refused to negotiate in good faith the proposed change in the existing contract. 

 

1.        Is this a labor dispute?  Explain

2.       How would you rule in this case?  Why?

 

 

Case 2 – Cold As Ice!

The Ice and Coal Drivers and Handlers Local Union 953 supported 160 to 200 local union ice peddlers who drove their own trucks selling ice from door to door in New York City.  However, the Union began efforts to induce all the nonunion peddlers to join the local union.  In order to better wage and working conditions of peddlers and their helpers in the city, most of the nonunion peddlers refused to join the union.

To break down their resistance and in retaliation, the Union adopted a plan, which was designed to make it impossible for union peddlers to buy ice to supply their local retail customers.  At the same time, the union set about to obtain from all area wholesale ice distributors agreements that they would not sell ice to union peddlers. 

Agreements were obtained from all distributors except the Empire Storage and Ice Company.  Empire refused to agree and as a result the Union informed Empire that it would use other means at its disposal to force the Company to come around to the union view.  Empire still refused to agree.  Empire’s location was promptly picketed by union members for the Company’s continued sale of ice of nonunion peddlers.

About 85% of the truck drivers working the Empire’s customers were members of labor unions and during the strike these union truck drivers refused to deliver goods to or from Empire’s place of business.  It was policy that had any one of them crossed the picket line he/she could have been subject to fines or suspension by the union of which he/she was a member.  As a result, the picketing had an instantaneous adverse effect on Empire’s business reducing profits by over 80%.  

 

1.       Describe and explain the role the truck drivers could and did play.  Would it legally matter if they were not members of the picketing union?

2.       Using only the information of Sherman Act, decide the case.  Explain your legal reason(s). 

 

 

 

 

 Week 4

 

Case 1 – How Were We To Know?

When the Collective Bargaining Agreement expired on September 22, 1985, representatives of Oxford Woodworking and international Woodworkers of America began negotiations.  They agreed to extend the agreement from one meeting to another; however, on September 30, five employees in the bargaining unit went on strike. 

                Beginning on October 3, the Company was looking for permanent replacements for the striking workers.  They placed an advertisement in the local newspaper for four days and then began taking applications.  On October 9, the Plant Manager told four of the strikers on the picket line that he intended to begin hiring replacements on October 14.  Once hearing this, the Union negotiators requested the Vice President for Manufacturing to be in the next negotiating session, scheduled for October 10. 

                The Company did indeed begin hiring permanent replacements.  One reported to work on October 17 and three more were began their jobs on October 18.  In accordance with federal law, the names of striking workers were placed on a preferential hiring list. 

On October 28, the employee who had not been replaced was allowed to return to work.  Further, one of the replacements that was to begin work on the 18^th never reported to the job and the replacement that started in the 17^th quit.  This left two of the strikers who had either not been replaced or returned to job.  The Union felt that this action was nothing less than termination and was in violation of the Collective Bargaining Agreement.

The Union filed a grievance on behalf of the two workers.  Supposedly, union officials had not been aware of the Company’s intent to replace.  Additionally, the Union argued that the Company could only dismiss employees for proper cause, not for an economic strike, thus this was illegal. 

 

1.       Was the comment of the Plant Manager that he intended to begin to hire replacements legally risky?  Explain.

2.       Explain your opinion of the union’s claim that an employer can only dismiss employees for proper cause and not in cases of an economic strike.

3.       Based on your understanding of Section 8(a)(3), how would you rule in this case?  Why? 

 

Case 2 – Sorry… I Can’t

In 1937, Case and Company, at its Rock Island nonunion plant, offered each employee an individual contact of employment.  The contracts were uniform and for a term of one year.  Case agreed to furnish employment as conditions allowed, to pay a set wage rate, which the Company might reevaluate if the job changed, and to maintain certain benefits.  The employee agreed to accept the provisions, to serve faithfully and honestly for the contract’s term, to comply with factory rules, and they would not be paid for any defective work. 

In 1954 the company was unionized and the Union questioned the legality of the contracts. The NLRB ruled that the contract was not a condition of employment, nor was the status of individual employees affected by reason of signing or failing to sign the contracts.  Further, the Board said that the agreements were not coerced or obtained by unfair labor practice(s).   This union was decertified in 1967. 

In 1982, while the individual contracts were in effect, a union petitioned the NLRB for certification as the exclusive bargaining representative of the production and maintenance employees.  Four months later, a hearing was held, at which Case urged the NLRB that the individual contacts should be a bar to representation proceedings.  The Board, however, directed an election, which was won by the union.  The union was certified as the exclusive bargaining representative of the employees in respect to wages, hours, and other conditions of employment. 

The Union then asked the Company to bargain.  Case refused, declaring that it could not deal with the Union in any manner affecting rights and obligations under the individual contracts while the contracts remained in effect.  It offered to negotiate on matters, which did not affect rights under the individual contacts, and said that upon the expiration of the contracts it would bargain as to all matters.  Twice the company sent circulars to its employees asserting the validity of the individual contacts and stating the position that it took before the Board in reference to them.

The Union felt the company had violated both Section 8(a)(5) and Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act (Wagner Act).   Further, where the earlier NLRB case only questioned the legality of the contracts, this complaint dealt with the idea that the contacts could prevent the employer from bargaining. 

 

1.       What do you think was the purpose of the collective trade agreements mentioned in this case?

2.       Do you think there is a legal difference between an individual contract and a union-negotiated (collective) one?  Explain your answer.

3.       What is your judgment in this case?  Explain.