National Labor Relations Board (buck Brown Contracting Co., Inc. and A.S.C. Constructors, a Joint Venture)

Introduction

This paper will discuss several cases involving Buck Brown Contracting Co., Inc. and A.S.C. Constructors, a Joint Venture and several employees. Each employee claims to have been unjustly fired from their job and seek reinstatement and compensation for lost wages. In the paper I will briefly discussed the history of each case; which part of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) applies to each case, how each case was decided, resolved and how the resolution was implemented.

Historical Background

Randal Fansler was discharged from his job on May 6, 1980. He accuses the respondent of unlawful interrogation in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act. On April 23, 1980 Fansler spoke with a Union Steward in reference to a pay dispute and the lack of sanitary outhouse facilities. A few hours after Fansler's meeting with his Union Steward he was questioned about his meeting by his supervisor. The Judge in this case ruled that the respondent did nothing wrong concerning the questioning of Randal Fansler. The Judge reached this conclusion because of the informal setting in which this incident occurred; Fansler's honest and intimidating demeanor with management; and the subsequent apology by the supervisor for his behavior. The Judge did find that when Fansler tried to resolve his pay problem and seek assistance in improving the work facilities through the union he was working in a capacity that was protected under the NLRA and therefore could not be discharged for those actions.

On May 14, 1980, Robert Kelly was discharged for raising complaints about contract violations and poor working conditions. Kelly complained about the lack of cold drinking water, sanitary facilities to use and the foreman doing work that should be reserve for union employees. Kelly believes he was fired because if his complaints. This was a violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the NLRA. The Judge in this case concluded that the crew foreman took Kelly's complaining personally and fired him from his job.

On May 15, 1980, Wendell Bridges was discharged shortly after Kelly. Bridges claimed he was fired because he complained about the numbers of hours scheduled for is shift. Bridges also stated he attempted to find other employment for Kelly on the job site which angered management. When management refused to hire Kelly back, Bridges threatened management with a strike in protest of Kelly's unfair treatment. This was a violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the NLRA. The Judge found that the activities Bridges's engaged in during his employment were protected under the NLRA and he was unjustly fired from his job.

On May 30, 1980, David Mark Doran and John Angle were discharged in violation of 8(a)(1) and (3) of the NLRA. Doran and Angle were both relieved of duty for drinking on the job. A Judge ruled that the discharge of the two employees was not in violation of the NLRA. Both men deny the accusation that a supervisor saw them drinking a beer with their lunch. This incident was later reviewed by an independent committee which upheld the original decision. The committee found that the respondent was not in violation of the NLRA; even though, had the men been drinking the rules regarding drinking while on duty were not enforced. Drinking prohibition was widely violated by both management and employees and had been condoned on the job site up until the time the two men were discharged. (Chairman 1987)

Legal Implications

The laws the respondent is accused of violating can be found in the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). The specific sections related to the above gentlemen are:

RIGHTS OF EMPLOYEES

" Sec. 7. [§ 157.] Employees shall have the right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, and shall also have the right to refrain from any or all such activities except to the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment as authorized in section 8(a)(3) [section 158(a)(3) of this title]." (NLRA)

UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES

" Sec. 8. [§ 158.] (a) [Unfair labor practices by employer] It shall be an unfair labor practice for an employer--

(1) to interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in section 7 [section 157 of this title];

(2) to dominate or interfere with the formation or administration of any labor organization or contribute financial or other support to it: Provided, That subject to rules and regulations made and published by the Board pursuant to section 6 [section 156 of this title], an employer shall not be prohibited from permitting employees to confer with him during working hours without loss of time or pay;

(3) by discrimination in regard to hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment to encourage or discourage membership in any labor organization: Provided, That nothing in this Act [subchapter], or in any other statute of the United States, shall preclude an employer from making an agreement with a labor organization (not established, maintained, or assisted by any action defined in section 8(a) of this Act [in this subsection] as an unfair labor practice) to require as a condition of employment membership therein on or after the thirtieth day following the beginning of such employment or the effective date of such agreement, whichever is the later, (i) if such labor organization is the representative of the employees as provided in section 9(a) [section 159(a) of this title], in the appropriate collective-bargaining unit covered by such agreement when made, and (ii) unless following an election held as provided in section 9(e) [section 159(e) of this title] within one year preceding the effective date of such agreement, the Board shall have certified that at least a majority of the employees eligible to vote in such election have voted to rescind the authority of such labor organization to make such an agreement: Provided further, That no employer shall justify any discrimination against an employee for non-membership in a labor organization (A) if he has reasonable grounds for believing that such membership was not available to the employee on the same terms and conditions generally applicable to other members, or (B) if he has reasonable grounds for believing