Opposition Brief — International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 494 v. National Labor Relations Board

between direct and indirect coercion, the words “continuing

relationship with the union” refer to the situation described

immediately prior in the same paragraph — the situation

where the union either has, or is seeking, a collective

, - lationship. Id

In arguing that § 8(b)(1)(B) is invoked only when a

collective bargaining agreement exists, the Petition argues

that the term “grievance,” as used in the statute, can refer

only to contractual grievances arising under an existing

collective bargaining agreement. (Petition, p. 9.) Therefore,

the Petition argues, the duties of adjusting grievances under §

8(b\1)(B) can exist only im the context of a collective

bargaining relationship. (Id.)

The Act does not define the term “grievance.” In

Royal Electric, the Court expressly declined to overrule the

Board's Gefinition of “grievance,” which includes employee

concerns and complaints, regardless of whether they arise

under a collective bargaining agreement. 481 U.S. at 589, fn.

12 (“[W]e need mot decide whether the Board’s broad

definition of grievance — and hence of ‘grievance adjustment’

~ is consistent with the narrow purpose of § 8(b)(1 B).”).

The narrow interpretation advanced by the Petitioner

disregards the fact that the Board, with the approval of the

court of appeals, has long defined the term “grievance” as

including complaints and concerns of employees that are not

represented by a labor organization and are not working

under a collective bargaiming agreement. See, e.g.

Shulman’s, Inc. of Norfolk v. NLRB, 519 F.2d 498, 499 (4"

Cir. 1975); Traction Wholesale Center Co., Inc. v. NLRB,

216 F.3d 92, 102-103 (D.C. Cir. 2000).

Contrary to the arguments set forth in the Petition, the

Court's opinion in Royal Electric considered and accepted

the Board’s rule that § 8(b)( 1 }(B) duties — and violations of §

8(b\1)(B) — can occur outside of the context of an existing

collective bargaining relationship. The instant Petition

simply raises that same issue once again.

CONCLUSION

The Respondents Podewils and Gerald Nell request that the

Petition be demed.

(106945)

Thre P Lads

Thomas P. Krukowski

Counsel of Record

Kevin J. Kinney

Timothy C. Kamin

KRUKOWSKI & COSTELLO, S.C.

7111 West Edgerton Avenue

Milwaukee, WI 53220

(414) 423-1330

ATTORNEYS FOR RESPONDENTS,

JOSEPH G. PODEWILS AND GERALD

NELL INC.