Reference no: EM131706719

Question: The labor contract between the West Penn Power Company of Arnold, Pennsylvania, and System Local No. 102 of the Utility Workers of America included a provision that employees engaged in the construction or maintenance of power lines would not be required to work outdoors during "inclement weather" and that the responsible supervisor would determine when weather conditions were too severe for outdoor work. The no-strike clause in the labor agreement required the union and its officers to make a "sincere, active effort to have work resumed at a normal rate" if the employees engaged in a wildcat strike or refused to carry out job assignments. One day in November, seven employees, including the union's president and vice president, ceased working due to weather conditions, despite their supervisor's repeated orders to keep on working.

West Penn subsequently suspended the five rank-and-file employees for five days each, but discharged the two union officers for "their refusal to proceed with a work assignment and to make an active effort as (union officers) to have work resumed by other union employees." An arbitration panel sustained the union president's discharge, while reducing the vice president's termination to a thirty-day suspension. Both men responded by filing unfair labor practice charges with the NLRB. What do you think was the basis for the unfair labor practice charges filed by the two union officials? How should the NLRB respond? Should it defer to arbitration in this case? If not, how should it rule on the unfair labor practice charges? What remedy should it impose if it finds the two men were wrongfully discharged? See West Penn Power Co. [274 NLRB No. 1160 (1985)].