Your Name
or Cancel
In Reply To
— by Ted Ted
by NLRB - board decision & order, excerpt:

Obviously a referral procedure that has the effect of reserving the first 80 to 85 percent of job referrals for picketers will tend to coerce members’ decisions about whether to engage in picketing.

The procedure is discriminatory and falls outside a union’s prerogatives in the operation of a nonexclusive hiring hall regardless of whether one casts the Respondent’s subjective motivation as rewarding picketers or as punishing non-picketers. See Service Employees Local 1107 (Sunrise Hospital), 347 NLRB 63, 65 (2006), citing Boilermakers Local 686 (Boiler Tube), 267 NLRB 1056, 1057 (1983) (Where a union interferes with a member’s Section 7 right to refrain from union activity, Section 8(b)(1)(A) does not require a showing of motivation or intent to establish a violation.)....


Such coercion is unlawful regardless of whether the provision also has lawful applications. The Respondent’s defense that it did not enforce paragraph 4(c), is also not viable. The mere existence of a rule that improperly discriminates on the basis of a member’s protected activity has a chilling effect on the exercise of Section 7 rights, and violates Section 8(b)(1)(A) regardless of whether the provision has ever been enforced. Awrey Bakeries, 335 NLRB 138, 139–140 (2001), enfd. 59 Fed. Appx. 690 (6th Cir. 2003); Engineers & Scientists Guild (Lockheed-California), 268 NLRB 311 (1983).

This is as short as it gets, to provide adequate context, proving Mr. Brennan was correct