Reference no: EM132219514

The Right to Strike. Seven of the employer’s 11 concrete truck drivers met several times during the week of September 16 to discuss their current wage rates, the lack of a medical insurance plan, and whether they should consider joining a union. After meeting with a representative of the national truck drivers’ union, four of the seven drivers signed union authorization cards. Employee Santos, one of the card signers, wrote a letter that the seven employees presented to the company’s plant manager on Friday, September 20. The letter stated, in part, “Today all employees wish to express a silent strike in pursuance of the right that our salaries be increased to $15.75 per hour. We will not work today ... until an accord is reached.” Later that Friday morning, the company president met with seven employees and told them that the company was in no position to give any wage increase; however, steps were already underway to establish a medical insurance plan by the end of the year. The seven employees met outside the plant and decided the company’s position was unacceptable. The company president stated that the board of directors would be meeting the following day (Saturday) to consider the matter. The seven employees continued their walkout during the rest of Friday. The board of directors met on Saturday and calculated the annual cost of the employees’ wage demand to be $308,000. The board of directors found this unacceptable and decided to replace the seven drivers rather than agree to increase wages. Later on Saturday, the plant manager offered driver positions to three individuals who already had job applications on file with the company. All three applicants accepted the job offer and were scheduled to begin work the following week. On Monday, the seven drivers who had walked out on Friday returned to the company but remained outside the plant entrance. Upon learning that the seven drivers had not reported for work at 8 A.M. on Monday morning but were instead congregating in front of the plant, the company president prepared a letter that was given to each of the seven drivers outside the company’s entrance at 9:30 on Monday morning. The letter referred to the walkout on the previous Friday and stated in relevant part: “The circumstances of having abandoned your work without first holding a dialogue, then bringing later on some demands which we cannot face economically at this time, in addition to your refusal to work if your conditions are not met exactly the way [you] stated them, we have to interpret it as a resignation from your job, leaving us without alternatives and unfortunately we have to accept your decision effective today, Monday, September 23.” The letter went on to state that the Friday work stoppage forced the company to fill some vacancies and curtail its operations in order to recover in part from the losses it had suffered. After receiving the letters, the seven employees left the plant to attend a meeting with a union representative. Sometime later on that Monday, three of the employees returned to the plant and requested reinstatement. The company reinstated the three drivers to their former jobs. The Union filed an unfair labor practice on behalf of the remaining four truck drivers, alleging that each had been unlawfully discharged in violation of the LMRA, as amended. Questions (I need one full paragraph for each question, please) 1. Does the work stoppage by the truck drivers in this case represent an economic strike or an unfair labor practice strike? 2. What is the difference between the reinstatement rights of an unfair labor practice striker and an economic striker? 3. Did the employer unlawfully discharge the four truck drivers who never returned to work? Explain your reasoning.