## Facts

- United Technologies Corporation and a machinists’ union were parties to a collective-bargaining agreement containing a multi-step grievance and arbitration procedure.
- An employee pursued a grievance through the contractual process.
- At a first-step grievance meeting, a company general foreman denied the grievance and allegedly suggested the employee could face discipline if the grievance were pursued to the next step.
- The union filed unfair labor practice charges under § 8(a)(1) of the NLRA, alleging interference with protected use of the grievance procedure.
- In a separate charge, the union alleged the employer denied an employee a promotion because she had filed numerous grievances.
- The employer sought Board deferral to the contractual grievance-arbitration machinery rather than Board litigation of the § 8(a)(1) allegation tied to grievance processing.

## Issues

1. Whether the employer violated § 8(a)(1) by allegedly denying a promotion because the employee filed grievances.
2. Whether the NLRB should defer, before arbitration, to the parties’ grievance-arbitration procedure when a § 8(a)(1) allegation arises from conduct connected to processing a grievance.

## Decision

- The Board dismissed the promotion-based § 8(a)(1) complaint, finding the evidence did not establish an unlawful motive or interference.
- The Board reversed the ALJ’s refusal to defer on the grievance-processing threat allegation and adopted a broader pre-arbitral deferral policy.
- The Board held it would generally defer to the parties’ contractual grievance-arbitration process when the dispute is cognizable under the agreement and that process is capable of resolving the statutory issue, absent special circumstances.

## Legal Principles

- The Board may defer the exercise of its jurisdiction, prior to arbitration, to a collectively bargained grievance-arbitration procedure when the dispute is covered by the procedure and the process can address the unfair labor practice issue.
- An alleged § 8(a)(1) violation is not automatically exempt from deferral; the relevant inquiry is whether the contractual process can fairly and adequately resolve the dispute in a manner consistent with the NLRA.
- Deferral is inappropriate where overriding considerations indicate the contractual procedure cannot reasonably protect statutory rights (e.g., inability to address the statutory issue or unfairness in the process).

## Conclusion

The NLRB dismissed the promotion-related § 8(a)(1) charge and, more importantly, established a generally applicable pre-arbitral deferral approach requiring the Board to allow the parties’ grievance-arbitration machinery to address contract-based disputes implicating § 8(a)(1), so long as the procedure can resolve the statutory issue and no special circumstances warrant immediate Board action.


United Techs. Corp., 268 N.L.R.B. 557 (1984)