Operations In Fiscal Year 1988 - National Labor Relations Board

Unfair Labor Practices 103when he stood at the head of the mass demonstration. His conductencouraged insults and hostility from others in the crowd.Member Johansen dissented. In agreement with the judge, hedid not find a violation of Section 8(b)(1)(A). He found that, althoughthe events were "tumultuous," they "did not create a coerciveor threatening atmosphere." Instead, he noted, the confrontationwith UFCW trustee representatives was basically limitedto the hurling of insults. It did not involve any threats oracts of violence attributable to agents of Respondent NAMPU.In Member Johansen's view, Evans' service as a spokesman forLocal P-9 members, particularly when UFCW General CounselMurphy had promised on the previous day to return to answerquestions about the trusteeship, "could hardly be a basis", forfinding an unfair labor practice. Member Johansen observed that,in view of this "broken promise," among other things, there wasalso no basis for finding that the crowding of 50 or more "suddenlydisinvited persons" around the ALC's only entrance for 10minutes was somehow coercive of employees' statutory rights.3. Contractual Leave of Absence ProvisionIn Electrical Workers IBEW Local 1212 (WPIX, Inc.), 1.13 aBoard panel held that the union did not violate Section8(b)(1)(A) and (2) by demanding the reinstatement of an employeepursuant to a leave of absence provision in the parties' collective-bargainingagreement that made some distinction betweenemployees on the basis of union status or activity. Accordingly,it dismissed the complaint.The employee who had been appointed business representativeof the union had taken a leave of absence from his bargainingunit job pursuant to a clause in the union's collective-bargainingagreement with the employer. That clause provided that an employeewishing to serve as a union official could be granted aleave of absence for a period of 2 years while unit seniority continuedto accrue for layoff purposes. Under the contract, an employeeseeking leave for other, nonunion-related purposes wasentitled to only a 6-month leave of absence with accrued senioriLty for layoff purposes, provided he or she did not solicit oraccept employment elsewhere. Subsequently, the employee informedthe employer that he no longer served as business representativeand requested reinstatement to his bargaining unit job.The employer refused the employee's request.The administrative law judge concluded that the contractualleave of absence provisions bestowed on union officials significantbenefits that were not granted to other unit employees andthus had a substantial adverse effect on the rights of other unitemployees. The judge found that the union failed to show thatthese benefits furthered the effective administration of bargaining113 288 NLRB No. 49 (Chairman Stephens and Members Johansen and Babson).