Question

Walt, age 62, worked as an assembler for a private manufacturer and is a member of a bargaining unit represented by the International Brotherhood of Teamsters (IBT). He has served as a shop steward for many years. Due to an increasing number of missing parts in its assembly area, the company installed hidden security cameras in that area, as well as the employee locker rooms, to identify the source of the loss. Employees are permitted to place their own locks on their lockers to safeguard their personal belongings during work. In order to avoid tipping off employees, the company did not notify employees or the IBT of the installation of the cameras. After it appeared from video recorded by a camera in the men’s locker room camera that Walt may have placed some parts in his locker, the company cut his personal lock off the locker and found parts like those that had been missing. Although Walt had maintained a clean disciplinary record for over twenty years, he was immediately terminated for theft. The collective bargaining agreement (CBA) between the company and the IBT makes no reference to the installation of security cameras in the workplace nor to the company’s ability to search employee lockers. The CBA does require that all terminations be based upon just cause, which is not defined. However, progressive discipline is specifically required before any termination may be imposed.

If the IBT filed an unfair labor practice charge with the National Labor Relations Board challenging only the company’s installation of the cameras and its search of Walt’s locker (not challenging Walt’s termination), what would be the likely basis for the charge? What issues should the IBT raise and WHY?

If the IBT filed a grievance on Walt’s behalf pursuant to the terms of the collective bargaining agreement challenging his termination, what would be the likely basis for the grievance? What issues should the IBT raise and WHY?

Please be very very detailed.

Answer 1

If the IBT filed an unfair labor practice charge with the National Labor Relations Board challenging only the company’s installation of the cameras and its search of Walt’s locker , on the basis of the rules which proposed that Legally any institutions or Authority or even Individual has to first take the permission from the person in authority of the place where the Camera has been installed .

The Likely Basics of the Charge And Issues IBT should raised are simply that the installation of camera is Secretly placed in Employees locker's room which are their privacy area without giving any notice to the Collective Bargaining Agreement , which is Illegal from all the aspects.

If the IBT filed a grievance on Walt’s behalf pursuant to the terms of the collective bargaining agreement, on the basis of Hidden camera which are installed illegally which hinder the other person's privacy . And secondly, Walt Age is 65 , in whole of his career he was found a clean disciplinary record, only found the missing parts does not amount to terminations.One May also give the warning And check for certain period.