Operations In Fiscal Year 1988 - National Labor Relations Board

Unfair Labor Practices 113I. Recognitional PicketingIn Food & Commercial Workers Local 23 (S & I Valu King), 140the Board found, contrary to an administrative law judge, thatthe union had not violated Section 8(b)(7)(C) by its picketing ofCharging Party Thomas Suleiman's store (S & I Valu King).On May 30, 1985, the union filed a petition seeking to representemployees at two stores owned by Mario A. Morini. OnJune 20, 1985, a Stipulated Election Agreement covering bothstores was executed by the union and Morini. Before an electionwas held, one of the stores, Valu King, was sold by Morini toSuleiman. This occurred on or about November 23, 1985. Suleimaninformed the Valu King employees of the sale.About November 24, 1985, the union picketed the Valu Kingstore. Suleiman filed a charge and a complaint was issued on January15, 1986, alleging that the union had violated Section8(b)(7)(C) by engaging in recognitional picketing. On January 17,1986, a temporary injunction against the union was issued by theUnited States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania.The union ceased picketing at the -Valu King store.On February 3, 1986, the Regional Director withdrew approvalof the June 20, 1985 Stipulated Election Agreement.The judge found that the union had violated Section 8(b)(7)(C)because it engaged in recognitional picketing at the Valu Kingstore without filing a representation petition. The judge foundthat the union had not filed a petition as to Valu King's employeeswithin 30 days of the commencement of its picketing at Suleiman'sstore.The Board determined that a petition was pending during theunion's recognitional picketing and therefore no violation occurred.The Board determined that the petition filed on May 30,1985, covering Morini's two stores continued in effect as to bothstores until February 3, 1986, when the Regional Director withdrewhis approval of the stipulation and, in effect, dismissed thepart of the petition dealing with the Valu King store. The Boarddismissed the complaint.J. Deferral to ArbitrationIn Ryder Truck Lines, 141 a unit employee was discharged afterrefusing to drive a truck he reasonably considered unsafe. Thedriver filed a charge alleging that the discharge violated Section8(a)(1) and grieved his discharge under the collective-bargainingagreement. That grievance was denied by the bipartite SouthernConference Joint Area Grievance Committee.The employer argued to the administrative law judge that theBoard should defer to the parties' grievance procedure and, ac-14° 288 NLRB No 103 (Chairman Stephens and Members Johansen and Babson).141 287 NLRB No. 82 (Members Johansen and Stephens; Chairman Dotson dissenting).