[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]
.Cf.American Meat Packing Co., 301 NLRB No.119 (1991); IndustrialElectric Reels, Inc., 310 NLRB No.169 (1993).127.NLRB v.Truitt Manufacturing Co., 351 U.S.149 (1956).Cf.Advertisers Manufacturing Company, 275 NLRB 100 (1985).Seealso NLRB v.Acme Industrial Co., 385 U.S.432 (1967).Seegenerally Bartosic and Hartley, "The Employer's Duty to SupplyInformation to the Union," 58 Cornell L.Rev.28 (1972).Similarly the Court has limited information about employeetest scores, which are characterized as confidential.NLRB v.Detroit Edison Co., 440 U.S.301 (1979).There are frequentdisputes about employee personnel records.CompareWashington Gas Light Company, 278 NLRB 220 (1994) withNew Jersey Bell TeLephone Co.v.NLRB, 720 F.2d 789 (3d Cir.1983).There are disputes about access to witness statementsas well.NLRB v.New Jersey Bell Telephone CO., 936 F.2d 144(3d Cir.1991); Diversy Wyandotte Corp., Dekalb, 302 NLRB No.158 (1991); Union Telephone and Telegraph Co., 309 NLRB No.85 (1993).Unions are entitled to information concerningnames of union officials who have applied to supervisorypositions.NLRB v.U.S.Postal Service, 841 F.2d 141 (6th Cir.1988).Unions have had difficulty in obtaining access toinformation regarding nonunit work, Bohemia, Inc., 272 NLRB1128 (1984); United StatespagepagePage 276Postal Service, 261 NLRB 505 (1982).But see E.L Dupont deNemours v.NLRB, 744 F.2d 536 (6th Cir.1984).Employershave, however, been obliged to disclose relevant informationon some bargaining issues.Minnesota Mining and Mfg.Co.,261 NLRB 27 (1982) enfd.711 F.2d 348 (D.C.Cir.1988); NLRB v.American National Can Co., 924 F.2d 518 (4th Cir.1991).128.Neilsen Lithographing Co.v.NLRB, 854 F.2d 1063, 1065 (7thCir.1988).129.Neilsen Lithographing Co., 305 NLRB No.90 (1991).Accord,Burruss Transfer, Inc., 307 NLRB No.31 (1992); Concrete Pipe &Products Corps., 305 NLRB No.21 (1991); Armored Transport ofCalifornia, Inc., 288 NLRB No.70 (1988); A.M.F.Bowling Co., Inc.,303 NLRB No.23 (1991); Parsons Electric Company, 304 NLRB No.115 (1991); United Paperworkers International Union v.NLRB,141 LRRM 2985 (6th Cir.1992).130.United Steelworkers Local 571 v.NLRB, 401 F.2d 434 (D.C.Cir.1968) cert.denied 395 U.S.946 (1969); NLRB v.WesternWirebound Box Co., 356 F.2d 88 (9th Cir.1966).131.United Steelworkers of America, Local Union 14534 v.NLRB,142 LRRM 2177 (D.C.Cir.1993).Chapter 71.Proposed Amendments to the National Labor Relations Act:Hearings on H.R.8410 Before the Subcommittee on Labor-Management Relations of the House Committee on Educationand Labor, 95th Cong., 1st Sess.389 (statement of John H.Fanning).This proved to be a slight exaggeration.See chapter 1,note 14.2.H.R.Rep.No.95687, 95th Cong., 1st Sess.21 (1977).SeeWeiler, "Promises to Keep: Securing Workers' Rights & Self-organization under the NLRA", 96 Harv.L.Rev.1769 (1983).3.Local 60, United Brotherhood of Carpenters v.NLRB, 365 U.S.651, 655 (1961); NLRB v.Seven-Up Bottling, 344 U.S.344, 346(1953).See also, for example, NLRB v.J.S.Alberici ConstructionCo., 591 F.2d 463, 470 n.8 (8th Cir.1979); Packing House andIndustrial Services v.NLRB, 590 F.2d 688, 697 (8th Cir.1978).4.The circuit courts have gone farther, holding that the propertest is what the employees would have earned but for thewrongful dismissal and that this may be less than the result ofmultiplying the actual wage before dismissal by the time sincedismissal if the employer would have discharged the employeeanyway for legitimate reasons; NLRB v.Fort Vancouver PlywoodCo., 604 F.2d 596 (9thpagepagePage 277Cir.1979); J.S.Alberici Construction Co.; Florsheim Shoe StoreCo.v.NLRB, 565 F.2d 1240 (2d Cir.1977); Sunderstrand HeatTransfer, Inc.v.NLRB, 538 F.2d 1257 (7th Cir.1976); NLRB v.Local No.2 of United Association of Plumbing and PipefittingIndustry, 360 F.2d 428, 434 (2d Cir.1966).Support for the "butfor" test was found in Golden State Bottling Co.v.NLRB, 414U.S.168, 18990 (1974).But see Packing House and IndustrialServices v.NLRB, 590 F.2d at 69798 (antiunion animus justifiesorder reinstating entire work force of predecessor company),following NLRB v.International Van Lines, 409 U.S.48, 53(1972).5.NLRB v.Gullett Gin Co., 340 U.S.361 (1951).Cf.NLRB v.Stateof Illinois Department of Employment Security, 138 LRRM 2764(N.D.Ill.1991).6."The reasonableness of a worker's effort to securesubstantially equivalent employment is determined by, inter alia,the economic climate in which the worker finds himself, theworker's skill and qualifications, and the worker's age andpersonal limitations." Lundy Packing Co.v.NLRB, 856 F.2d 627(4th Cir.1988).There is an obligation to seek new employmentwhich is substantially equivalent to the position lost.KawasakiMotors v.NLRB, 850 F.2d 524 (9th Cir.1988).If a worker isrequired to lower his sights, the obligation exists only after areasonable period of time.Rainbow Coaches, 280 NLRB No.17(1986); Arlington Hotel Co., Inc., 287 NLRB No.87 (1987) [ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]