Mastro Plastics Corp. v. NLRB - 350 U.S. 270, 76 S. Ct. 349 (1956)

Rule:

In the absence of some contractual or statutory provision to the contrary, an employer's unfair labor practices provide adequate ground for an orderly strike. Under those circumstances, the striking employees do not lose their status and are entitled to reinstatement with back pay, even if replacements for them have been made.

Facts:

Employers whose collective bargaining contract with the union representing their employees contained a provision by which the employees agreed not to strike during the term of the contract, discharged an employee, who was a member of the union, because of the employee's activity in support of the union and in opposition to a union favored by the employers. The discharge precipitated a strike which occurred during the sixty-day period following the giving of notice by the union representing the employees of a request for modification of the collective bargaining contract. The employers discharged the striking employees, asserting, by way of defense to the union's allegations that the discharges constituted unfair labor practices, that the strike was in violation of the strike-waiver provision in the collective bargaining contract, and that the striking employees had lost their status as employees for purposes of the remedial provisions of the amended National Labor Relations Act, under 8 (d) of the act, providing for loss of status in the case of any employee engaging in a strike during the sixty-day "cooling off" period following a request for termination or modification of a collective bargaining contract. The National Labor Relations Board rejected the employers' contentions, and its order requiring the reinstatement of, and payment of back pay to, the discharged employees was enforced by the Court of Appeals.

Issue:

1. Did the strike-waiver provision in the collective bargaining agreement bar employees from exercising their right to strike in all cases, even due to the employer’s unfair labor practices?
2. Under the circumstances, did the striking employees lose their status as employees?

Answer:

1) No. 2) No.

Conclusion:

The Court held that the strike-waiver provision in the collective bargaining agreement barred employees from striking for economic benefits, but did not deprive them of their right to strike solely against the employers' unfair labor practices. Moreover, the Court held that 8(d) of the amended National Labor Relations Act was not properly to be construed as depriving individuals of their status as employees where they engaged in a strike within the "cooling off" period solely as a consequence of their employers' unfair labor practices.