TWENTY-SIXTH ANNUAL REPORT - National Labor Relations Board

Unfair Labor Practices 93
time absent a no-solicitation rule, 18 a pi otest to the union's "monitoi
board" conceimng the manner in which the union was representing
its membeis ," and leading a meeting on company property during
a lunch period for the purpose of discussing a grievance matter with
the certified bargaining representative 25
No violation was found where employees were dischaaged for engaging
in a slowdown to pressure the employer into recognizing the
union," or .where a union shop steward was responsible for an unauthoimed
woik stoppage in violation of a valid no-stuke clause 17
But in Ford Motor Co 18 a Board majority, ielying on Mastro Plastics,"
held that the employei violated section 8(a) (3) and (1) by
discharging employees for "giving leadership to" and "instigating"
an unauthorized work stoppage, notwithstanding a no-strike clause
in the employer's conti act with the incumbent union, because the
stoppage was in pi °test against the employer's discrimmatory suspension
of an employee, and the contract contained no language waiving
the right of employees to engage in a strike caused by the employer's
unfair labor pi actices 20 However, in. another case, 21. no
violation was found where an employee, formerly a supervisor, was
discharged for organization activity on behalf of a union while he
was a supervisor The Board noted that since the employer would
have been justified in discharging him foi such conduct when he was
a supervisor, this prim unprotected conduct did not become protected
because he was an employee when he was discharged
(1) Strike Misconduct
At times, cases of alleged discrimination turn on the issue whether
the employees involved are entitled to the statutory protection because
of circumstances attending their otherwise protected activities Thus,
'New Orleans Furniture Mfg Co, 129 NLRB 244, 251 For a discussion of no solicita
Hon ules, see oho% e, pp 80-82
Falstaff Brewing Corp, 128 NLRB 294, 305
14 Fold Motor Co (Sterling Plant), 131 NLRB No 174, Member Leedom dissenting in
part See also Gibbs Corp, 131 NLRB No 118, discussed above, where the Board found
violations of sec 8(a) (1) and (4), but not 8(a) (3)
Lenecraft Optical Corp , 128 NLRB 807
Unives MI/ Overland Express, Inc , 129 NLRB 82, 92 Compare with R L Zsegivr,
Inc , 129 NLRB 1211, 1220, where a union steward's activities In talking about the union
during work breaks, which did not violate any rule or general practice at the plant, as
held protected
48 Ford Motor Co (Sterling Plant), above, Member Leedom dissenting in part on other
grounds
12 Mastro Plastics Corp v NLRB, 350 II El 270 (1956)
20 For the Board's most lecent application of the Mastro Plastics doctrine see Arlan'a
Department Store of Michigan, /no, 133 NLRB No 56, decided Oct 10 1001, after the
close of the fiscal year, where a majority held that only strikes in protest against "serious"
unfair labor practices should be deemed immune from general no strike clauses
Gibbs Automatio Div. Pierce Industries, Inc • 129 NLRB 196 See also Leonard
Ntederriter Co • Inn, 180 NLRB 118