Law for Business 10th Edition by James Barnes,Terry Dworkin,Eric Richards

Exercise 1

During a strike against it, International Paper Company (IP) continued operations by employing nonstriking union members and nonunion replacement workers. There were periodic outbursts of violence, threats, and other strike-related misconduct. After the strike, IP discharged some employees for strike-related misconduct. The union claimed that IP discriminated against the striking employees by firing strikers for strike-related misconduct while failing to dismiss nonstriker Barclay, who had engaged in equally serious or more serious misconduct but had received only a warning. During the strike, Barclay and his son, carrying baseball bats, confronted a group of strikers who were attending a party near Barclay's home. He complained to them about being harassed and constantly called a "scab," and said he was there to clean them out. When a scuffle ensued after he refused to leave, one of the guests received a cut. This behavior was compared to that of the fired strikers. Striker Chicoine accosted a nonstriker and told her that he would kill her for crossing the picket line, and used a megaphone to threaten replacement workers by telling them he had a.44 and would blow their heads off. Striker Flagg threatened to kill a replacement worker. Striker Hamlin attempted to run replacement workers off the road with his truck. Striker Storer threw a rock at a replacement worker's car, kicked the car, and jumped on the bumper. The NLRB upheld the firings, and the union appealed that decision to the circuit court. Did the employer unfairly discriminate against the striking employees?