Reference no: EM132154135
Petitioner, Columbia Portland Cement Company (the “Company”), operates a limestone shale quarry and cement production facility in Zanesville, Ohio. Since at least September 1, 1984, Local Lodge D24 of the Cement, Lime, Gypsum & Allied Workers Division of the International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Iron Shipbuilders, Blacksmiths, Forgers and Helpers, AFL- CIO (the “Union”), has represented the Company’s em- ployees. The most recent collective-bargaining contract between the Union and the Company’s predecessor expired on May 1, 1984, but the predecessor company and the Union agreed to extend that contract during negotiations for a new contract.
The Company purchased the facility from the pre- decessor on August 28, 1984. The Company notified the Union on August 29, 1984, that it intended to ter- minate the extended contract and desired to negotiate a new one. The parties failed to reach agreement on a new contract, however, and on October 28, 1984, the Company unilaterally implemented the last offer it had made. On May 8, 1985, the employees went out on strike.
By letter dated April 29, 1987, the Union made an offer to return to work on behalf of the striking em- ployees. The letter stated that the employees “uncondi- tionally offer to return to work immediately.” In response, the Company sent a letter dated May 7, 1987, informing the Union that, “with regard to [the] unconditional offer to return to work,” the Company would not reinstate the striking employees. The Com- pany contended that some of the employees had been lawfully terminated, and that the remainder were per- manently replaced economic strikers who would be kept on a list for future vacancies.
On April 20, 1988, the Company offered reinstate- ment, without back pay, to 62 of the striking employees; 33 eventually returned to work.
“A strike which is caused in whole or in part by an employer’s unfair labor practices is an unfair labor prac- tice strike.” Employees who go out on strike in response to an employer’s unfair labor practices may not be per- manently replaced by other employees. Unfair labor practice strikers are entitled to immediate reinstatement by the employer upon their unconditional offer to return to work. Refusing to reinstate striking employees after their unconditional offer to return to work violates sec- tion 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act.
The Company granted employees a wage increase of 20 cents per hour; replaced the retirement plan with a 401(k) plan; and changed the grievance procedure to by- pass the union and deal directly with the grievant. These actions all violate the employer’s duty to bargain with the employees’ exclusive bargaining agent in contravention of section 8(a)(5) and (1). Accordingly, the Board’s deci- sion must be AFFIRMED.
Case Questions
1. Why do you think the employer refused to rehire the strikers after they gave an unconditional promise to return?
2. Do you think it is fair that employees striking because of an unfair labor practice are entitled to reinstate- ment? Explain.
3. Do you think the new owner of the business took this hard line in dealing with the union in order to try to ini- tially establish its dominance over the union? Explain