Operations In Fiscal Year 1988 - National Labor Relations Board

Unfair Labor Practices 101ation" in considering a union's breach of its duty of fair representation.Member Cracraft agreed with the majority that the caseshould be remanded to the judge, but she disagreed with the allocationof the burden of proof. Member Cracraft stated that inan 8(b)(1)(A) breach of the duty of fair representation case shewould place the burden of proof in accordance with the burdenof proof in a Section 301 failure to fairly represent suit. Shenoted that the duty of fair representation is a court-created doctrineand, therefore, the burden of proof should be the same inboth Board and court proceedings. Accordingly, she would requirethe General Counsel to prove that the employee's grievancewas meritorious before she would assess backpay againstthe union. Member Cracraft also set out why she disagreed withthe majority's reasoning that a different burden of proof is requiredto administer the Board's resources, comply with theBoard's congressional mandate, or provide a meaningful remedy.in duty of fair representation cases.2. Coercion Through Mass DemonstrationIn Meat Packers NAMPU (Hormel & Co.), 1 1 2 the Board foundthat the union (NAMPU) violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) by engagingin and encouraging a mass demonstration to harass andimpede representatives of the trustee for Local P-9, United Foodand Commercial Workers International Union (UFCW) at theAustin Labor Center (ALC).This case arose in the context of the UFCW Local P-9 strikeagainst Geo. A. Hormel & Company (Hormel) in Austin, Minnesota.In an effort to end the strike after certain unsanctioned activityby Local P-9, the parent international union secured atrusteeship of the local and took physical possession of the ALC,a building leased by Local P-9 for office and meeting facilities.That same day, General Counsel George Murphy and otherUFCW representatives confronted 80-120 protesters, includingunidentified P-9 members and members of Respondent NAMPU,which had been formed by 7 striking P-9 members. Murphy toldemployee Merrill Evans, who led the protesters in persistent acrimoniousquestioning, that he would return to the ALC on July3, 1986, to answer numerous questions posed about UFCW andthe P-9 trusteeship.Contrary to his stated intentions, however, Murphy did notreturn to the ALC on July 3. Before the scheduled meeting,UFCW deputy trustees Kenneth Kimbro and Jack Smith, alongwith seven other UFCW agents who had inspected the premises,concluded that the building was not fit for use and so informedJames Rogers, the president of Active Retirees (AR), a socialgroup that supported P-9 strike activities against Hormel.112287 NLRB No. 74 (Chairman Dotson and Member Babson; Member Johansen dissenting).