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

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386016_0134%3A2

## Record

- **Collection:** Supreme Court brief
- **Document type:** Opposition Brief
- **Published:** January 1, 2005
- **Citation:** 546 U.S. 977

## Text

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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386016_0134%3A2. Public record. Not legal advice.