Gas
Works Employees Union Local 686 UWUA v. Philadelphia Gas Works, Pa.
Labor Relations Board, No. PERA-C-12-99-E (Dec. 17, 2013).
A Philadelphia utility is not
required to honor a Gas Works Employees Union’s request for a witness list tied
to a union member’s firing, the Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board ruled.
Philadelphia Gas Works employee Mark Silver was discharged for alleged sick
leave fraud in August 2011. Two days before he was let go, he told his boss he
was sick and needed to see a doctor. Before that, Gas Works denied Silver’s
request for time off to attend a court hearing the same day because he didn’t
have the leave. Suspicious about whether Silver was genuinely ill, the company
sent two employees to the courthouse and asked them to report what they had
observed.
When the union grieved the
discharge and sought the witness statements, the employer denied the request.
Concluding that the
employer’s refusal was lawful, the Pennsylvania Board followed a National Labor
Relations Board (NLRB) policy established in Anheuser-Busch, 237 NLRB
982 (1978). According to that policy, a witness would be reluctant to supply a
statement if he knew that his statement could be disclosed. In addition, the
witness could fear intimidation by a party to the case or a party’s supporters.
Interestingly enough, the
NLRB modified its Anheuser-Busch policy in 2012. The new policy holds
that an employer is required to provide witness statements unless it can show a
legitimate and substantial confidentiality interest that outweighs the union’s
need for information.
In the instant case, the
state board declined to follow the NLRB change, instead adhering to its
long-standing ruling. Thus, there was no obligation on the part of the employer
to supply the witness statements.
Source: SHRM.org
No comments:
Post a Comment