“[E]mployer violates section 8(a)(1) by offering economic benefits in exchange for ceasing union activity.”
How later courts described this case
- “[E]mployer violates section 8(a)(1) by offering economic benefits in exchange for ceasing union activity.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
PREGERSON, Circuit Judge
(dissenting):
The Board’s conclusion that deferral to the arbitration award would engender a result repugnant to the purposes and policies of the National Labor Relations act is, as the majority opinion points out, unsupported by “analysis of the [Spielberg] repugnance criterion.” I suggest that we need to know why the Board thought the arbitration award was repugnant to the Act before we determine whether the Board abused its discretion in refusing to defer to the arbitration award. Accordingly, I vote to remand with instructions that the Board state the reasons for its conclusions of repugnancy.