Opinion ID: 539169
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: the strike against park and the subsequent agreement

Text: 24 The Union's threat to strike against Park, the actual strike, and the agreement that Park would not subcontract for the remainder of the existing collective bargaining agreement were also impermissible, as the Board determined. The lawfulness of the activities against Park turns on whether the Union sought to enforce the provisions of the existing collective bargaining agreement or to amend that agreement. The ALJ reasonably concluded that the Union was trying to alter the existing agreement and thus acted unlawfully. 25 The Union claims that the Board's decision is fatally flawed because the ALJ erroneously found inconsistent the testimony of two Union officials, Van Lith and Bailey, regarding the purpose of the strike. As reported by the ALJ, Van Lith testified that the Union was seeking to enforce an existing agreement, while Bailey acknowledged that the Union was seeking to add a no-subcontracting clause. According to the Union, both officials testified that the purpose of the strike was to enforce the existing agreement. Both the ALJ and the Union are correct. Bailey's testimony was self-contradictory: sometimes he acknowledged that the Union sought to change the contract; other times he maintained the Union was only enforcing the existing agreement. Compare J.A. at 591-92, 851, 880 (agreeing that Union was striking to obtain a new clause) with id. at 601-02, 852, 881 (suggesting that Union sought not to renegotiate but to enforce the collective bargaining agreement then in existence). The ALJ did not err in terming Bailey's testimony inconsistent with Van Lith's unequivocal statement that the Union struck to enforce the existing agreement. 26 Finally, the ALJ correctly determined that no provision of the existing contract barred subcontracting. He found that the Union's reliance on Article XI was a pretext designed to provide the Union with a colorable excuse for striking Park in the face of a no-strike clause in its contract. J.A. at 28. This finding was supported by the evidence: Bailey's equivocal testimony; the Union's failure to raise Article XI until Advice's switch in position stripped the Memorandum of Understanding of utility; the language of Article XI, which suggests the clause does not ban subcontracting but merely spells out appropriate procedures should a labor controversy involve a subcontractor; and the inclusion of a clause similar to Article XI in the new collective bargaining agreement even though the employers had rejected a proposed subcontracting ban. See J.A. at 14 n. 14. 27 For the reasons stated, we deny the petition for review and enforce the Board's order. 28 It is so ordered.