The court also concluded that substantial evidence supports the Board’s factual finding that Hawaiian Dredging discharged the welders because of its policy and not for some discriminatory reason. If anything, Hawaiian Dredging’s policy promotes collective bargaining by ensuring that all of its welding work is done pursuant to a pre-hire agreement. So, absent other evidence, there is nothing discriminatory about a policy that suspends work and discharges all employees when an agreement expires. The court explained when a prehire agreement expires, a construction employer has no continuing obligation to maintain a bargaining relationship with a union. The court agreed with the Board that Hawaiian Dredging demonstrated “a legitimate and substantial business justification for” discharging the welders. The DC Circuit denied the petition finding that the Board’s new decision was supported by substantial evidence and correctly applied established law. The Board then changed its view and concluded that no unfair practice occurred. But Hawaiian Dredging asked the DC Circuit to review that decision, and the court remanded it to the Board to reconsider. Originally, the Board sided with the Boilermakers. The Boilermakers thought those discharges were an “unfair labor practice” under the National Labor Relations Act and asked the National Labor Relations Board to weigh in. Hawaiian Dredging then discharged Boilermakers welders who were covered by the now-expired agreement. Hawaiian Dredging Construction Company and a Hawaiian chapter of the Boilermakers union failed to renew a collective bargaining agreement.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |