## Facts

- Metropolitan Edison Co. began constructing the Three Mile Island nuclear power plant in 1968 and entered a collective-bargaining agreement (CBA) with Local Union 563 of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW).
- The CBA contained a no-strike clause, but union members nonetheless engaged in four unlawful work stoppages between 1970 and 1974.
- After each stoppage, the company imposed more severe discipline on union stewards than on other participating employees.
- The union filed grievances challenging the disparate discipline in two instances; arbitrators upheld the employer’s actions, reasoning that union officials had an affirmative duty to uphold the CBA and could be sanctioned more severely for failing to do so.
- In 1977, an unrelated union established an informational picket line at the construction-site entrance, and IBEW members refused to cross it, resulting in a work stoppage.
- The company told the local IBEW president that he had a duty to comply with the no-strike clause by crossing the picket line and encouraging others to return to work, but he refused.
- After roughly four hours, the unions negotiated a settlement that included opening a second entrance; the picket line ended and employees returned to work.
- The company suspended rank-and-file employees who refused to cross the picket line for 5 to 10 days, but suspended the local IBEW president and vice-president for 25 days based on their failure to attempt to end the stoppage by crossing the line and inducing others to follow.
- The union filed unfair labor practice charges; an administrative law judge found the disparate discipline violated the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), the NLRB agreed, and the Third Circuit enforced the Board’s order.
- The Supreme Court granted certiorari.

## Issues

1. Whether an employer violates NLRA § 8(a)(3) by imposing more severe discipline on union officers than on rank-and-file employees for participating in the same unlawful work stoppage when the CBA does not explicitly impose a higher duty on union officers to prevent or end such stoppages.
2. Whether prior arbitration awards or past practice can substitute for an explicit contractual provision and justify harsher discipline of union officers under § 8(a)(3).

## Decision

- The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment enforcing the NLRB’s order.
- The Court held that, absent an explicit contractual duty imposing higher obligations on union officers, disciplining union officials more harshly than other participants in an unlawful work stoppage violates NLRA § 8(a)(3).
- The Court rejected the employer’s argument that prior arbitration decisions or an implied “affirmative duty” of union leadership supplied a sufficient basis to single out union officials for heavier punishment.

## Legal Principles

- NLRA § 8(a)(3) makes it an unfair labor practice for an employer to discriminate in hire, tenure, or other terms and conditions of employment to encourage or discourage membership in a labor organization.
- An employer may discipline employees who engage in an unlawful strike or work stoppage, including suspensions or other sanctions consistent with the Act and the CBA.
- Disparate discipline based on an employee’s status as a union officer constitutes discrimination that can discourage union membership or participation in union leadership.
- A union officer may be held to a stricter disciplinary standard than other employees only if the CBA clearly and explicitly imposes a higher duty on officers to take specified steps to prevent or end unlawful stoppages.
- Arbitration awards and prior grievance outcomes may interpret or apply the parties’ contract for contractual purposes, but they do not, by themselves, supply the explicit contractual duty required to justify role-based disparate discipline under § 8(a)(3).

## Conclusion

Metropolitan Edison violated NLRA § 8(a)(3) by suspending union officers more harshly than rank-and-file employees for the same unlawful work stoppage when the collective-bargaining agreement did not expressly impose a higher, officer-specific duty to end the stoppage, and earlier arbitration rulings could not replace that explicit contractual basis.


Metropolitan Edison Co. v. National Labor Relations Board, 460 U.S. 693 (1983)