This National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) decision addresses allegations that The Stroh Brewery Company, a/k/a Joseph Schlitz Brewing Company (Respondent), violated Sections 8(a)(1) and (3) of the National Labor Relations Act (the Act) by discharging employee Thomas L. Reynolds. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), Steven M. Charno, issued a decision on July 20, 1984, which the Board reviewed following the Charging Party's exceptions and supporting brief, and the Respondent's answering brief.

The ALJ found that Reynolds was suspended indefinitely on November 24, 1982, for alleged insubordination and subsequently discharged for insubordination and excessive absenteeism. The Union grieved the discharge, and the matter proceeded to binding arbitration as provided by the collective-bargaining agreement. Arbitrator Herbert V. Rollins conducted a formal hearing on February 23, 1983.

The arbitrator's initial decision on June 2, 1983, addressed whether there was just cause for Reynolds' discharge. The arbitrator found that Reynolds, an electrician with 14 years of service and an able union chief steward, had never been faulted for his work as an electrician. However, Reynolds and the Respondent had disagreements regarding the amount of time he spent on union business. The Respondent had implemented a "Shop Steward Report" form to monitor this time, which Reynolds objected to. On November 24, 1982, after a meeting concerning his objections, Reynolds refused to return to work immediately when ordered by his supervisor, Ted Holcomb, stating he needed to finish writing notes of the meeting. He eventually returned but indicated he had further union business. When asked to estimate the time needed, Reynolds refused to provide information for the form.

Reynolds then became angry, threw his safety glasses, advanced towards assistant manager Harold Mann in a "belligerent manner" with clenched fists, and made threatening statements. Mann, concerned about being struck, stepped back. Reynolds responded with further threats, including a physical assault threat and abusive language. Mann then suspended Reynolds indefinitely. Reynolds initially refused to leave the premises, asserting his status as a union official, and the police were called to escort him out.

The arbitrator found Reynolds' refusal to return to work, his threat to Mann, and his misconduct during the meeting to be acts of insubordination, thereby sustaining the discharge. The arbitrator noted that Reynolds' work as an electrician was not an issue and that his misconduct was related to his "disregard for the orderly operation of the plant and his insubordinate conduct while he conducted Union business." As a measure of leniency, the arbitrator included a proviso allowing Reynolds to return to work solely as an electrician if he gave up all union activities.

Subsequently, Reynolds attempted to return to work but did not agree to forgo his union post. The Respondent rejected his attempts. The Respondent then requested the arbitrator reconsider the award to remove the proviso, while the Union sought full reinstatement with backpay and no restriction. In a July 8, 1983 letter, the arbitrator stated that Reynolds' misconduct warranted discharge and sustained the discharge without the proviso, deeming Reynolds' position as an attempt to circumvent his findings. The arbitrator disclaimed any reference to the National Labor Relations Act.

The Union sued in federal district court, and on April 11, 1984, the court found the initial award's proviso invalid and unenforceable, remanding the case for further proceedings. The arbitrator issued a supplemental award on May 15, 1984, sustaining the discharge without the proviso.

Before the ALJ, the Respondent moved to defer to the arbitrator's award. The ALJ initially denied this, but reconsidered in light of intervening Board decisions. Applying the Spielberg Manufacturing Co. standards, the ALJ examined whether the proceedings were fair and regular, if the parties agreed to be bound, and if the decision was "clearly repugnant" to the Act. The ALJ found no issues with the fairness of the proceedings or the agreement to be bound.

The ALJ then applied the standard articulated in Olin Corporation, which requires that the contractual issue be factually parallel to the unfair labor practice issue and that the arbitrator be presented with relevant facts. The ALJ determined that the arbitrator had adequately considered the unfair labor practice. The contractual issue of whether Reynolds was properly discharged for insubordination was factually parallel to the unfair labor practice allegation. The arbitrator considered all relevant evidence regarding Reynolds' union activities and his insubordination during that time.

The ALJ rejected the General Counsel's argument that the award was repugnant to the Act because the arbitrator allegedly ignored the principle that discharges during grievance meetings are protected unless there is "opprobrious conduct." The ALJ distinguished the cases cited, noting that in those instances, the employee's conduct was provoked by employer unfair labor practices, which was not alleged here. The ALJ found that Reynolds' repeated refusal to obey orders, his "obscene and physical nature of his threat to Mann," the absence of provocation, and the lack of formality surrounding his concurrent protected activity supported the arbitrator's conclusion that Reynolds had crossed the line between acceptable and unacceptable behavior. Therefore, the ALJ concluded the amended award was not "palpably wrong" and was not repugnant to the Act. The ALJ granted the Respondent's motion to reopen the record to receive additional documentary evidence and adopted the ALJ's recommended order, dismissing the complaint.

Significant Cases Cited

This summary was generated using Google's Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite. It could contain errors.