1 / 6

Relevant Provisions of NLRA

Relevant Provisions of NLRA.

ford
Télécharger la présentation

Relevant Provisions of NLRA

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Relevant Provisions of NLRA • “8(a) Unfair labor practices by employer. It shall be an unfair labor practice for an employer . . . (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: . . .” • 10(c) “. . . No order of the Board shall require the reinstatement of any individual as an employee who has been suspended or discharged, or the payment to him of any back pay, if such individual was suspended or discharged for cause.”

  2. Dual Motive Discharge • Conflict between Board and Courts • Wright Line issued in 1980 • Cited Mt. Healthy Bd. Ed. v. Doyle, 429 U.S. 274, 1977 • Enforced or not? • Enforced NLRB v. Wright Line, 662 F.2d 899,909 (1981) • Enforcement denied, NLRB v. Trans. Mgt., 462 U.S. 393, 400 (1983) • who bears burden of showing discharge would have occurred: GC or Er? • GC did not “give up” • Adverse Court decisions in “dual motive” cases back to 1968 and into 1970’s; violation if GC met: • “dominant motive” test (1st, 9th Circuits) • “reasonably equal” (5th Circuit) • But also “in part” test (3rd, 4th,7th, 10th Circuits) • Supreme Court took 15 years to resolve dispute • waits for “ripeness”

  3. Transportation Management • Shifting burden of proof • on GC to show prima facie case that union activity a factor in decision • on Er to show discharge\discipline would have occurred in absence of anti union motivation • Er in best position to rebut prima facie case

  4. TRANSPORTATION MANAGEMENT Shifting Burden of Proof in Dual Purpose Discharge Cases ON GENERAL COUNSEL: Was anti-union animus (motive) a factor in the employer’s decision to discharge the employee? ON EMPLOYER: Would the discharge have occurred in the absence of concerted activity? Violation Will Be Found YES NO NO YES No Violation No Violation

  5. Elements General Counsel Must Show • 1. Activity that is protected by Act • 2. Employer aware of protected activity. • 3. Adverse employment action suffered by ee(s) • 4. A link between adverse employment action and protected activity • Wright Line, 251 NLRB 1083, 1980, efd. 662 F.2d 899 (1st Cir., 1981), cert. Den. 455 U.S. 989, see also Manno Electric, 321 NLRB 278, 280 at fn 12 (1996)

  6. Application to Trans. Management • General Counsel Elements of Burden • 1. Activity that is protected by Act • Santillo attempting to organize drivers • 2. Employer aware of protected activity. • Supervisor statements to Santillo (“two-faced,” “get even”) • 3. Adverse employment action suffered by ee(s) • Discharge • 4. link between adverse employment action and protected activity • Proximity in time between supervisor statement and discharge • Employer: Occurred in any event? • Keys in bus a common occurrence • Decision made before superv. aware of keys • No customary warnings on breaks

More Related