## Facts

- Robert C. Atkinson, Jr. worked as a UPS package driver and union shop steward and campaigned against ratification of collective-bargaining agreements.
- UPS discharged Atkinson for alleged violations of package-delivery procedures.
- Atkinson alleged the discharge was motivated by antiunion animus, violating NLRA § 8(a)(1) and (3).
- Atkinson filed grievances under the collective-bargaining agreement, asserting both contractual violations and an NLRA § 8(a)(3) claim.
- A joint labor-management grievance panel held a hearing, received evidence (including Atkinson’s testimony), and denied the grievances, upholding the discharge.
- In parallel, Atkinson filed an unfair labor practice charge with the NLRB.
- An ALJ declined to defer to the grievance-panel decision under Babcock & Wilcox and found UPS violated the Act.
- UPS filed exceptions, challenging the refusal to defer and the merits ruling.

## Issues

1. Whether the Board should defer to the joint grievance panel’s decision sustaining Atkinson’s discharge.
2. Whether to retain or overrule Babcock & Wilcox’s post-arbitral deferral standard in favor of the Spielberg/Olin deferral framework.
3. Under the governing deferral standard, whether the grievance-panel proceedings and decision warranted dismissal of the unfair labor practice complaint.

## Decision

- The Board overruled Babcock & Wilcox and restored the traditional Spielberg/Olin approach to post-arbitral deferral.
- The Board also reinstated related doctrines governing pre-arbitral deferral (United Technologies) and deferral to pre-arbitral settlements (Alpha Beta).
- Applying the restored standard, the Board deferred to the grievance-panel decision and dismissed the § 8(a)(1) and (3) complaint.

## Legal Principles

- The Board will defer to an arbitral/grievance decision where: (1) proceedings were fair and regular; (2) the parties agreed to be bound; (3) the arbitrator considered the unfair labor practice issue; and (4) the decision is not clearly repugnant to the NLRA.
- Under Olin, deferral is appropriate when the contractual issue is factually parallel to the unfair labor practice issue and the arbitrator was presented generally with the facts relevant to the statutory issue.
- Babcock’s stricter requirements for post-arbitral deferral (including heightened showings regarding arbitral authorization and consideration of the statutory issue) are no longer controlling.
- Even under a more deferential regime, the “clearly repugnant to the Act” limitation remains a substantive backstop to protect NLRA rights.
- The restored approach favors honoring collectively bargained dispute-resolution mechanisms and avoiding relitigation of discharge/discipline disputes already resolved through agreed procedures.

## Conclusion

The Board reinstated a more deferential deferral doctrine and, because the grievance-panel process satisfied the restored requirements and the outcome was not clearly repugnant to the NLRA, it deferred to the panel’s decision and dismissed the unfair labor practice complaint challenging Atkinson’s discharge.


United Parcel Serv., Inc., 369 N.L.R.B. No. 1 (2019)