Opinion ID: 1308987
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Were Local 959's Activities Arguably Within the Scope of the NLRB's Jurisdiction?

Text: The first issue to be determined is whether the union's activity was arguably within the scope of the NLRB's jurisdiction. [8] Local 959 argues that there is an evidentiary basis for finding the union's actions within the unfair labor practice provisions of the NLRA. It first contends that any violence or threat against [a union] member could arguably constitute coercion and restraint within the meaning of [section] 8(b)(1)(A). Second, attempts to have Wells' wife quit work at Odom may have constituted a violation of Section 8(b)(1)(B) which provides that it is an unfair labor practice to restrain or coerce an employer in the selection of its supervisors. Third, it argues that it was a restraint on the company's selection of Donna as its representative for the purposes of collective bargaining or the adjustment of grievances. Wells argues that Local 959 threatened his life because Donna would not either quit her employment with Odom Company, against whom the union was on strike, or disclose confidential information concerning Odom to the union and because Donna Wells is not a party to the action no preemption can occur. In our view the union's activities are arguably within the ambit of the NLRA. Acts or threats of violence against one employee may violate the rights of other employees to make free choices to exercise or to refrain from exercising their rights to collective bargaining, self organization, etc. Cf. NLRB v. Union Nacional de Trabajadores, 540 F.2d 1, 6 (1st Cir.1976) ([Union] threats directed against a non-employee can constitute a § 8(b) violation if they occur in contexts in which employees are likely to learn of them.). Here there appeared to be considerable discussion and some complaints about Wells' wife working as a supervisor and her taking a union job. Thus any threats or coercion against Arlo Wells which others may have learned about may have led to an unfair labor practice, because it could have intimidated other employees from making free choices. [9] Moreover, the attempt of Local 959 to have Donna either quit or provide information arguably violates § 8(b)(1)(B), which forbids a union to coerce an employer in the choice of a bargaining representative. Donna was a supervisor with the power to fire employees. The NLRB has taken the position that a union violates § 8(b)(1)(B) by coercing a choice of supervisor even without proof that the supervisor in question actually has collective bargaining authority. (The NLRB recognized that an employer frequently draws a collective bargaining representative from the existing pool of supervisors.) See Operating Eng'rs, 460 U.S. at 679 n. 10, 103 S.Ct. at 1460 n. 10, 75 L.Ed.2d at 378 n. 10. Thus, we conclude that the union's activities are arguably unfair labor practices within the National Labor Relations Board's jurisdiction.