Operations In Fiscal Year 1988 - National Labor Relations Board

Unfair Labor Pracdces 1054. Coupling Reinstatement with Backpay ObligationIn Teamsters Local 282 (Willets Point Contracting)," 6 a Boardpanel held, contrary to the administrative law judge, that the respondentunion's conduct in coupling its request for reinstatementof discriminatees Kuebler and Curd at Willets Point ContractingCorp. (Willets) with the demand that Willets pay thebackpay obligation for which the respondent union was liableunder the Board's Order in Frank Mascali Construction l" didnot constitute a separate violation of Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2).In Mascali, the Board, having found the respondent union inviolation of Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) by causing the dischargesof the discriminatees from Willets because of their dissidentunion activity, ordered that the respondent union request Willetsto reinstate the discriminatees immediately and that the respondentunion make them whole for all losses incurred as a result ofthe unlawful discharges. The Board further ordered that, in theevent Willets refused to reinstate the discriminatees, the backpayobligation would be extended until the diScriminatees found substantiallyequivalent employment.Subsequent to the issuance of Mascali, the respondent union'sinitial request to Willets that it reinstate the discriminatees wasrefused. The respondent union thereafter renewed the request,and then entered into a series of meetings with representatives ofWillets and the discriminatees. During the meetings, the respondentunion coupled its request for reinstatement with the demandthat Willets assume the backpay obligation to the discriminateesand further stated that, if Whets refused to assume the obligation,it would take the matter to arbitration. The employer eventuallyagreed to reinstate the discriminatees, but adamantly refusedto assume backpay obligations or to arbitrate thematter." 8 After numerous discussions and negotiations, however,the respondent union withdrew its backpay demand and itsrelated grievance and, therefore, after over 2 years of discussionand negotiation, the discriminatees were reinstated.The Board concluded that it did not "consider the Respondent'sactions to be the type with which the Board should concernitself in a newly filed, separate, unfair labor practice proceeding.Rather, in our view, the conduct involved herein relates to theRespondent's compliance, or lack thereof, with the outstandingBoard order in Mascali." Accordingly, the Board dismissed thecomplaint.11 NLRB No. 13 (Chairman Stephens and Members Babson and Cracraft).117 251 NLRB 219 (1980), enfd. mem. 697 F.2d 294 (2d Cir. 1982), cert. denied 459 U.S. 988 (1982).118 During the 2-year period in which the parties met, the respondent union filed a petition in statecourt to compel arbitration. The petition was subsequently denied.