Skip to main content

NLRB v. International Paper

1st CircuitAugust 31, 1993No. 92-2236
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
Published
Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
appeal

Related Laws

Claim Types

RetaliationDiscrimination

Outcome

The court granted enforcement of the NLRB's order affirming the discharge of three strikers (Chicoine, Hamlin, Storer) for serious strike-related misconduct while requiring reinstatement of one striker (Bilodeau) who was unlawfully discharged in disparate treatment, and reversing the ALJ on another striker (Flagg) whose misconduct was found more serious than comparators.

What This Ruling Means

**NLRB v. International Paper (1993)** This case involved five workers at International Paper Company who were fired after participating in a strike. The company claimed all five employees engaged in serious misconduct during the strike, but the workers argued their firings were unfair retaliation for striking. The court reached different conclusions for each worker. It upheld the firing of three strikers—Chicoine, Hamlin, and Storer—finding they did commit serious misconduct during the strike that justified their discharge. However, the court ordered the company to reinstate one striker, Bilodeau, because his firing was unlawful. The company had treated him more harshly than other workers who committed similar acts, which violated his rights. For the fifth worker, Flagg, the court disagreed with an earlier decision and confirmed his firing was proper because his misconduct was more serious than other comparable cases. **What this means for workers:** While employees have the right to strike, they can still be fired for serious misconduct during strikes. However, employers cannot single out certain strikers for harsher punishment than others who engaged in similar behavior. Companies must apply discipline consistently and fairly, even during labor disputes.

This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.

Browse Related

Facing something similar at work?

Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.

This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. Case outcomes, claim types, and summaries are extracted using AI analysis and may be incomplete or inaccurate. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.

See something wrong, or named in this ruling and want it corrected or redacted? Request a correction.