May 24, 2012

NTN Bower Corporation (10-CA-37271 et al.; 356 NLRB No. 141) Hamilton, AL

 The Board adopted the judge’s findings that the employer engaged in multiple violations of the Act in the aftermath of an employee strike.  These violations included refusing to offer reinstatement to former strikers; threatening former strikers with the loss of their reinstatement rights if they failed to sign the employer’s return to work log; engaging in surveillance of employee union representatives; relocating the union’s office at the plant; establishing rules which impeded employees’ access to their union representatives; denying employee union representatives’ access to its plant; modifying employees’ work week; and refusing to furnish the union with information which the union was entitled to receive, including the addresses of permanent replacement employees 30 days after the strike ended.

With respect to this last violation, the Board noted that the judge properly applied extant law holding that this information is presumptively relevant and must be provided, if requested, unless there is a clear and present danger that the information would be misused by the union.  Member Hayes noted that he would overrule extant Board precedent and adopt the Seventh Circuit’s “totality of circumstances” standard in which the legitimate concerns about the harassment and safety of replacements are balanced against the requesting union’s legitimate need for information.  Under this standard, an employer does not act unlawfully if it offers reasonable alternatives to accommodate the union’s need.  Member Hayes also noted that in the present case he would affirm the judge’s finding of a violation even under the Seventh Circuit’s standard.  Chairman Liebman and Member Pearce noted that they adhered to the “clear and present danger” test but agreed that a violation was established under the proposed “totality of the circumstances” standard as well.

Charges filed by the United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW). Administrative Law Judge John H. West issued his decision on May 20, 2010. Chairman Liebman and Members Pearce and Hayes participated. 

© Copyright 2012 National Labor Relations Board

About the Author

The National Labor Relations Board is an independent federal agency vested with the power to safeguard employees' rights to organize and to determine whether to have unions as their bargaining representative. The agency also acts to prevent and remedy unfair labor practices committed by private sector employers and unions.

866-667-6572

Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. NLR does not accept advertising from attorneys or law firms. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com  intended to be an advertisement or a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.