Question

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

Answer 1

Ans-

A)

1- The reason behind it would be-

If the company has purchased the cement production unit and there is no involvement of the predecessor so there are chances the company is changing the vision or plans for itself so for that they might be thinking that they have enough evidence to proof that it was legitimate act and it does not violate any labour law

2- The union started the strike in 1984 and decided to rerurn in 1987 so there are chances in this three years they have downsize the conpany and can only accomodate 62 employees.

B) Yes I think it is fair because if you are working in an organisation it is important that the work environment and the benefits it offers should be as good. And suddenly changing these benefits for the currently working employee can fill anger in them. The strikers hsve two option one us to strike and persuade employer to reach consensus or look for other better job , if he does not get better job and fails to persuade the employer then the employee has the right to return to work and accept the changes.

3- I do not think the same if the employer sole purpose was to establish his dominace then he could adopt other ways like being strict and do not offering, flexibility in work , adhering to the policy, imposing his beliefs etc and he will not take this hard line as it will violate laws and risk his business and his career as well.