## Facts

- Olin Corporation operated a plant with approximately 260 production and maintenance employees represented by Local 8-77, Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers International Union, AFL-CIO.
- The collective-bargaining agreement included a broad no-strike/no-lockout clause prohibiting strikes, slowdowns, stoppages, or interference with plant operations during the contract term.
- On December 17, 1980, Olin suspended two pipefitters who refused work they viewed as millwright work; about 43 employees then left work with medical excuses in what Olin treated as a “sick-out.”
- Olin issued written reprimands to 39 employees and discharged union president Salvatore B. Spatorico by letter dated December 29, 1980, citing his record and “in particular for threatening the sick out, participating in the sick out, and failing to prevent it.”
- Spatorico grieved his discharge; an arbitrator found a sick-out occurred, that Spatorico at least partially caused or participated in it, and that he failed to try to stop it until after it occurred.
- The arbitrator concluded Spatorico’s conduct violated the no-strike clause and that Olin discharged him for contract-prohibited conduct rather than protected union activity.
- The General Counsel issued an unfair labor practice complaint alleging the discharge violated NLRA § 8(a)(3) and (1); an ALJ declined to defer to arbitration on the statutory issues but found no violation on the merits.
- On review, the NLRB addressed both the merits and the proper standard for post-arbitral deferral in unfair labor practice cases.

## Issues

1. Under what circumstances should the NLRB defer to an arbitration award when the contractual grievance concerns the same underlying conduct as an alleged unfair labor practice?
2. Whether Olin unlawfully discharged Spatorico in violation of NLRA § 8(a)(3) and (1) by discriminating against protected union activity.

## Decision

- The NLRB affirmed the ALJ’s decision (as modified) and dismissed the complaint.
- The Board reformulated its post-arbitral deferral standard, making deferral more likely where the contractual and statutory disputes turn on the same core facts.
- Applying the new standard, the Board deferred to the arbitration award upholding Spatorico’s discharge, finding the proceeding fair and regular, the parties bound, and the result not clearly repugnant to the Act.

## Legal Principles

- The Board will defer to an arbitration award when: (1) the arbitral proceedings were fair and regular, (2) the parties agreed to be bound, and (3) the award is not clearly repugnant to the purposes and policies of the NLRA.
- For post-arbitral deferral, the Board will also require that: (1) the contractual issue is factually parallel to the unfair labor practice issue, and (2) the arbitrator was presented generally with the facts relevant to resolving the unfair labor practice.
- Deferral does not require that the arbitrator explicitly decide the NLRA issue, so long as the relevant facts were before the arbitrator and the contractual analysis resolves the same factual dispute central to the statutory claim.
- The “clearly repugnant” limitation preserves the Board’s authority to reject arbitration outcomes that conflict with NLRA rights.

## Conclusion

The NLRB adopted a more deferential post-arbitral deferral framework requiring factual parallelism and general presentation of relevant facts to the arbitrator, and it deferred to an arbitration award sustaining the discharge of a union president for participating in and failing to stop a sick-out, dismissing the § 8(a)(3) and (1) allegations.


Olin Corp., 268 N.L.R.B. 573 (1984)