Question

Walt, age 62, worked as an assembler for a private manufacturer and is a member of a bargaining unit represented by the International Brotherhood of Teamsters (IBT). He has served as a shop steward for many years. Due to an increasing number of missing parts in its assembly area, the company installed hidden security cameras in that area, as well as the employee locker rooms, to identify the source of the loss. Employees are permitted to place their own locks on their lockers to safeguard their personal belongings during work. In order to avoid tipping off employees, the company did not notify employees or the IBT of the installation of the cameras. After it appeared from video recorded by a camera in the men’s locker room camera that Walt may have placed some parts in his locker, the company cut his personal lock off the locker and found parts like those that had been missing. Although Walt had maintained a clean disciplinary record for over twenty years, he was immediately terminated for theft. The collective bargaining agreement (CBA) between the company and the IBT makes no reference to the installation of security cameras in the workplace nor to the company’s ability to search employee lockers. The CBA does require that all terminations be based upon just cause, which is not defined. However, progressive discipline is specifically required before any termination may be imposed.

If the IBT filed an unfair labor practice charge with the National Labor Relations Board challenging only the company’s installation of the cameras and its search of Walt’s locker (not challenging Walt’s termination), what would be the likely basis for the charge? What issues should the IBT raise and WHY?

Answer 1

If IBT plans to file an unfair labor practice charge with NLRB against the company, the likely basis of the charge will be the unjust termination of Walt. The termination reason of Walt had not been specified under any clause of the collective bargaining agreement signed between the company and IBT. Hence there is no legal offense conducted by Walt. Moreover, the investigation of Walt’s locker without his knowledge as well as installation of security cameras without intimating the employees is clearly privacy violation. So IBT can capitalized these issues and file a lawsuit against the company