NLRB QUESTIONS EMPLOYERS’ RIGHT TO PERMANENTLY REPLACE ECONOMIC STRIKERS

Written on .

The current members of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) seem to be constantly over-ruling well-settled NLRB precedent to expand organized labor’s rights, usually to the detriment of employers’ management rights.  Many years ago the U.S. Supreme Court said an employer possesses the right to permanently replace economic strikers to continue business operations during an economic strike.  Mackay Radio, 304 U.S. 333 (1938).  This doctrine states that a union has the right to use the economic weapon to engage in a strike, and employer has the right to use an economic weapon to permanently replace economic strikers.  While this principle has been well-established law for almost 80 years, the current NLRB has now made some exceptions to this long-standing principle. 

In American Baptist Homes, 364 NLRB No. 13 (May 31, 2016), the current NLRB finds that the employer was motivated by an "independent unlawful purpose" in permanently replacing economic strikers, thus finding the employer’s permanent replacement of strikers to be unlawful.  Much of the controversy came from a telephone conversation in which the union attorney placed a telephone call to the employer’s attorney, in which the employer allegedly indicated that the employer was permanently replacing the strikers and the union attorney asked why the employer was permanently replacing them.  Although the employer’s attorney denied the response, the NLRB ruled on credibility grounds that the employer representative responded that the employer "wanted to teach the strikers and the union a lesson.  They wanted to avoid any future strikes, and this was a lesson that they were going to be taught."

Having found this conversation to have occurred, the Board denies interfering with the sort of economic weapons that parties can use in seeking to gain acceptance of their bargaining position, and instead finds that the employer’s admitted purpose was to punish strikers for exercising the fundamental statutory right to strike.  Thus, the NLRB distinguishes between an employer’s attempt to force the union to agree to its contract terms, as compared to an attempt to discriminate against employees for the express purpose of punishing them for striking. 

There is a second reason for the NLRB ruling.  The Board found that the employer’s management official assumed that the permanent replacements would be willing to work in the event of another strike and the employer wanted to avoid the cost of hiring temporary employees again in the future.  The Board found that the employer’s attorney’s statement to the union that the employer hired permanent replacements because it "wanted to avoid any future strikes, and this was a lesson they were going to be taught" establishes an additional independent unlawful motive, specifically a desire to interfere with employees’ future protected activity.  The Board indicates in a footnote that the employer is not required to express a reason for permanently replacing economic strikers, but that if the employer does so (or if the evidence otherwise indicates a reason), the Board can and should determine whether that reason is an independent unlawful purpose. 

The lone Republican on the current NLRB dissents, indicating that the decision will eliminate or limit an employer’s ability to utilize permanent replacements.  The dissenting member states that under the majority’s decision, if the employer has permanent replacements, it appears that any evidence of strike animus will render unlawful the employer’s actions, resulting in potentially debilitating back pay liability.  The dissenting member says this is a structural change in the competing interests of employees, unions and employers that is contrary to what Congress intended, what the Supreme Court has recognized, and what the statute says the Board is duty-bound to enforce.

Editor’s Note: Many believe that the current NLRB is intent on changing the scope of labor law to the detriment of employers, and to the benefit of unions.  The current case is another example.  Employers will need to be extremely careful in what they say about the reasons for the permanent replacement of strikers.  Unions may try to "set up" management to make inappropriate statements and the like, generating additional risks for employers in permanently replacing economic strikers.  The danger is particularly acute in this day in which unions often engage in short-term or "intermittent" strikes to bolster their bargaining positions.

Get Email Updates

Receive newsletters and alerts directly in your email inbox. Sign up below.

Recent Content

supreme court building, outdoors, blue sky

Supreme Court Reinstates Stay of OSHA Vaccine Mandate

In a 6-to-3 decision published January 13, 2022 the U.S. Supreme Court has stayed implementation of an Emergency Temporary Standard (ETS)...
viles of vaccines indoors

The Supreme Court Stays the OSHA ETS; CMS Vaccine Mandate for Healthcare Workers Goes Forward

Yesterday, we received decisions from the US Supreme Court on the status of the OSHA COVID-19 ETS and the CMS vaccine mandate for healthc...
number 15 on a brick wall

Federal Contractor Minimum Wage Final Rule Requires $15.00 Minimum Wage

On November 22, 2021, the Department of Labor's (DOL) Wage and Hour Division issued a final rule implementing President Biden's Executive...
covid vaccine viles

Appeals Court Lifts Stay to OSHA Vaccination ETS (Updated)

On Friday night, December 17, 2021, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati lifted the stay of OSHA's Emergency Temporary Standa...
walkout, outdoors, red hats

Workplace Walk-outs and Strikes This Year Have More than Doubled

Unions have engaged in over 240 major strikes this year, doubling the number from last year. Some have labeled the situation "strike-tobe...
Federal business building, indoors

Federal Contractors Soon to Be Required to Verify They Have Affirmative Action Plans

In general, companies that do business with the federal government are required to have affirmative action plans. Such plans address how ...

Wimberly, Lawson, Steckel, Schneider & Stine

3400 Peachtree Road, Ste 400 / Lenox Towers / Atlanta, GA 30326 /404.365.0900

Where Experience Counts


Thank you for visiting the firm's website. Please note that this website is intended for general information purposes only and does not constitute an offer of representation or create an attorney-client relationship with the firm. The firm welcomes receipt of electronic mail but the act of sending electronic mail alone does not create an attorney-client relationship. You may reproduce materials available at this site for your own personal use and for non-commercial distribution. All copies must include the firm's copyright notice.

© 2020 Wimberly, Lawson, Steckel, Schneider & Stine P.C. | Site By JSM