NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, PETITIONER,
v.
PACIFIC COAST UTILITIES SERVICE, INC., RESPONDENT, AND INDUSTRIAL, TECHNICAL & PROFESSIONAL EMPLOYEES DIVISION, NATIONAL MARITIME UNION OF AMERICA, AFL-CIO, RESPONDENT
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the company's discharge of an employee violated the National Labor Relations Act, and the union also violated the Act by failing to represent the employee fairly.
An employee was discharged by his company, and the union failed to represent him fairly due to his support of a rival union and his demands regarding …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Protected Union Activity cases and more on FLexlaw
[*74] PER CURIAM:
There is substantial evidence in the record to support the finding of the Board that the company’s discharge of Barone was in violation of section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. § 158(a)(1) & (3) (1976). Barone’s action as shop steward in advising the employees not to sign warning slips presented by the foreman of another company until Barone could discuss the matter with his supervisor was protected union activity. F. J. Buckner Corp. v. NLRB, 401 F. 2d 910 (9th Cir. 1968), cert. denied, 393 U.S. 1084, 89 S.Ct. 868, 21 L.Ed.2d 777 (1969); NLRB v. Ferguson, 257 F. 2d 88 (5th Cir. 1958). See also NLRB v. Thor Power Tool Co., 351 F. 2d 584 (7th Cir. 1965).
There was substantial evidence as well to support the finding that the union violated section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act. The record shows that the union failed to represent Barone in a fair and impartial manner because of his support of a rival union and his insistence that union dues not be paid until health insurance coverage was provided.
It was proper for the Board to rule that the employer and the union had joint and several liability to compensate the employee for any loss of back pay. Given the determination that discharge was wrongful, it follows that the failure of the union to represent the employee was damaging to him and a contributing factor to his loss of pay. See Newport News Shipbuilding & Dry Dock Co., 236 N.L.R.B. No. 197 (1978). The amount of back pay, if any, can be determined in further proceedings before the Board.
ENFORCEMENT GRANTED.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
SAN Francisco WEB Pressmen & Platemakers' Union NO. 4 v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., 794 F.2d 420 (9th Cir. 1986)
Authorities Cited
- Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Thor Power Tool Co., 351 F.2d 584 (7th Cir. 1965)
- Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Ferguson, 257 F.2d 88 (5th Cir. 1958)
- City of Highland Park v. Fiore et ux., 393 U.S. 1084 (U.S. 1969)
- Byczynski et ux. v. N.Y. Cent. Dev. Corp., 393 U.S. 1084 (U.S. 1969)
- F. J. Buckner Corp. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., 401 F.2d 910 (9th Cir. 1968)