Reference no: EM131706802

Question: On August 16 no maintenance employees reported for work and production at the brewery was halted. The brewery filed a lawsuit in federal district court seeking injunctive relief and damages against the employees' union on the grounds that the collective bargaining agreement contained a nostrike clause and an arbitration clause. The union responded that

(1) the employees' actions were individual, not concerted, activity;

(2) the employees were entitled to wear the tank-tops pending arbitration of the controversy; and

(3) the employer should not be permitted to hide behind a Boys Markets injunction after management's overreaction had itself precipitated the crisis.

How do you think the court ruled in this dispute? See Anheuser-Busch v. Teamsters Local 633 [511 F.2d 1097 (1st Cir.)], cert. denied [423 U.S. 875(1975)]. 15. Stikes, an employee of Chevron Corp., was discharged for refusing to allow the employer to search her car under a company antidrug policy, adopted in 1984, that required workers to submit to random searches of person and property. Stikes was a member of the bargaining unit represented by the Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers Union; the collective agreement covering the bargaining unit provided for arbitration of discharge cases. Rather than submit a grievance over her discharge, Stikes filed a suit against Chevron in the state court. The suit charged Chevron with wrongful discharge, intentional infliction of emotional distress, unfair business practice, and violation of rights to privacy under the state constitution. Chevron argued that the suit was preempted by Section 301 because it was a suit to enforce the collective agreement. Does Stikes have a right to sue under state law over her discharge, or is her suit preempted by Section 301? Explain your answer. See Stikes v. Chevron USA Inc. [914 F.2d 1265 (9th Cir. 1990)].