# W-I Canteen Service, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board

> Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · September 25, 1979 · 606 F.2d 738

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9466129

## Case

- **Full name:** W-I CANTEEN SERVICE, INC., Petitioner, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
- **Decided:** September 25, 1979
- **Citations:** 606 F.2d 738; 102 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2447; 1979 U.S. App. LEXIS 11611
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Sprecher
- **Judges:** Pell, Sprecher, Wood
- **Cited by:** 22 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9466129

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- rejecting “a rigid requirement that a no-strike clause contain the specific term ‘sympathy strike’ ” to waive employee’s right to engage in sympathy strike, where no-strike clause expressly extended beyond arbitration clause

## Opinion text

SPRECHER, Circuit Judge,
dissenting.
As the majority correctly notes, a waiver of the right to strike should be in clear and unmistakable language. Gary Hobart Water Corp. v. National Labor Relations Board, 511 F.2d 284, 287 (7th Cir. 1975), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 925 , 96 S.Ct. 269 , 46 L.Ed.2d 252 (1975). The purported waiver here is considerably less than that. The no-strike language reads (Art. XVIII):
The Company and the Union agree that there will be no strike ... so long as the Company and Union submit to arbitration any differences which may arise which are not covered by this Agreement.
The sympathy strike involved here was “not covered by this Agreement” and the issue involved was not submitted to arbitration. In addition, any employee or union official reading the contract would find the following clauses:
The Company will not, as a condition of continued employment, require the employees to cross any picket line established on or in front of the premises of any other company (Art. VII, Sec. 3).
* * * *
In the event of a strike or lockout of any certified Union, it shall not be considered a violation of this Agreement for the members of the Union to refuse to deliver goods or service machines where such controversy is on (Art. XVII, Sec. 9).
* * * *
. [T]he parties are mindful of and have no wish to detract from any employee right guaranteed by law (Art. XIX, Sec. 1).
Absent a clear and unmistakable waiver, the right to participate in a sympathy strike is an employee right guaranteed by law. Buffalo Forge Co. v. United Steelworkers of America, 428 U.S. 397 , 96 S.Ct. 3141 , 49 L.Ed.2d 1022 (1976).
Finally, in 1973, after the Company was compelled to reinstate some employees whom it had fired for honoring a picket line outside a customer’s plant, it sent a statement of policy to the Union, which read in part:
In no instance in the past have any employees been discharged, disciplined or discriminated against due to their refusal to cross a picket line, all have been treated equally and fairly.
I respectfully dissent. I would deny the petition for review and would grant enforcement of the Board’s order.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9466129. Public record. Not legal advice.