Reference no: EM13954307

The employer is a small, nonunion furniture manufacturer with 15 employees engaged in interstate commerce. Both of the employees involved in this case worked in the machine shop building as band-saw operators. Because the band saws were located near the shop ’ s large overhead door, to facilitate the disposal of sawdust, the band-saw operators were often subject to lower temperatures and drafts on cool or cold days ,whereas other employees farther from the overhead door often felt too warm. To resolve this long-standing problem, the plant manager established a rule that stated: “ The overhead door will remain open when the temperature in the shop exceeds 68 degrees and closed when the temperature is at or below 68 degrees. ”

On the day in question, employees Drake and Keeler, who were both band-saw operators, complained to the shop supervisor that they were too cold and requested that the overhead door be closed. When questioned by the shop supervisor, the majority of the other shop employees present responded that they thought the door should be left open. The thermometer on the wall of the shop supervisor ’ s office, located in approximately the center of the machine shop building, read 72 degrees .

On this day, employee Drake was wearing a sleeve-less shirt and shorts. Employee Keeler was dressed in blue jeans, a short-sleeved shirt, a flannel shirt, and a heavy sweater. Both Keeler and Drake claimed it was too cold and drafty at their workstation near the open overhead door. The shop supervisor refused to close the overhead door because the majority of employees wanted it left open. During a scheduled lunch break, Drake and Keeler discussed their problem and decided to walk off the job for the remainder of the day to protest the cold temperature at their workstation.

Upon returning to work the following morning, Drake and Keeler were informed by the plant manager that they had been fired for leaving work the previous day without management ’ s permission. Drake and Keeler subsequently filed an unfair labor practice charge with the NLRB alleging their discharge represented unlawful discrimination of their right to engage in concerted and protected activity under Section 7 of the LMRA. Drake and Keeler requested a remedy to include reinstatement with full back pay and restoration of any lost privileges.

1. Because Drake and Keeler ’ s employer meets the standard for coverage under the LMRA by engaging in interstate commerce, which specific employee right protected by Section 7 of the LMRA could Drake and Keeler argue they were engaged in which at least partially motivated the employer ’ s decision to discharge them?

2. On what grounds might the employer try to argue that the discharge of Drake and Keeler was an appropriate (legal) exercise of management’s rights?

3. Was the employer’s s discharge of Drake and Keeler ran unfair labor practice under the LMRA, as amended? If so, what should be the appropriate remedy?