The Hobson's Choice in Union Discipline Cases: When Union Members Are Forced to Decide Between Fired or Fined

• Author: Andrea M. Krogstad
• Position: J.D., The University of Iowa College of Law, 2013
• Pages: 2115-2139

2115

The Hobson’s Choice in Union Discipline

Cases: When Union Members Are Forced

to Decide Between Fired or Fined

Andrea M. Krogstad

ABSTRACT: For over thirty years, the National Labor Relations Board has

declared that it is an unfair labor practice for unions to discipline members

who report workplace violations to their employers. This policy was recently

rejected by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. The court’s decision leaves

union members in the untenable position of having to decide between

disregarding the employer’s instructions to report workplace violations to the

employer and facing adverse employment action, or being fined by or

suspended from the union. This Note argues that there may be a way to

reconcile the circuit split by finding concerted activity when the union

member reports on rules that are included in the collective bargaining

agreement. The Note also encourages Congress to amend the labor laws to

extend protection to this group of individual union members. If Congress is

unable to pass an amendment, this Note argues that the next best solution is

for employers to negotiate with unions to include provisions in collective

bargaining agreements that protect these union member employees.

I. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................... 2117

II. STATUTORY HISTORY AND CASE-LAW DEVELOPMENT ON UNION

DISCIPLINE ........................................................................................... 2118

A. STATUTORY HISTORY ..................................................................... 2118

B. BOARD AND COURT INTERPRETATION OF “CONCERTED ACTIVITY” .... 2120

C. APPLICATION THROUGH TIME OF SECTION 8(B)(1)(A)—UNFAIR

LABOR PRACTICES .......................................................................... 2122

1. The Statutory Language and Legislative History

Approach .............................................................................. 2122

2. The Policy Considerations Approach ................................. 2123

 J.D., The University of Iowa College of Law, 2013; B.A., Augustana College, 2010. I

would like to thank the members of Volumes 97 and 98 of the Iowa Law Review for their work

on this Note.

2116 IOWA LAW REVIEW [Vol. 98:2115

III. CONFLICTING CIRCUIT COURT OPINIONS REGARDING SECTION

8(B)(1)(A) HOBSON’S CHOICE DILEMMAS ......................................... 2126

A. THE UNION’S ACTION IS A PER SE VIOLATION OF SECTION

8(B)(1)(A) ..................................................................................... 2126

1. Ninth Circuit Interpretation: NLRB v. General Teamsters

Local No. 439 ......................................................................... 2126

2. Traditional Board Policy ...................................................... 2128

B. UNION’S ACTION NOT A VIOLATION OF SECTION 8(B)(1)(A)

BECAUSE THE UNION MEMBER ACTED ALONE .................................. 2129

IV. ANALYSIS OF POTENTIAL APPROACHES TO THE HOBSON’S CHOICE

DILEMMA .............................................................................................. 2131

A. JUDICIAL APPROACH: FINDING CONCERTED ACTIVITY WHEN THE

UNION MEMBER’S REPORTING IS SUPPORTED BY THE COLLECTIVE

BARGAINING AGREEMENT ............................................................... 2131

B. NONJUDICIAL APPROACHES ............................................................. 2133

1. Competing Policy Considerations ....................................... 2134

2. Collective Bargaining Agreement ....................................... 2136

3. Statutory Amendment .......................................................... 2137

V. CONCLUSION ....................................................................................... 2139