Walt, age 62, worked as an assembler for a private manufacturerand is a member of a bargaining unit represented by theInternational Brotherhood of Teamsters (IBT). He has served as ashop steward for many years. Due to an increasing number of missingparts in its assembly area, the company installed hidden securitycameras in that area, as well as the employee locker rooms, toidentify the source of the loss. Employees are permitted to placetheir own locks on their lockers to safeguard their personalbelongings during work. In order to avoid tipping off employees,the company did not notify employees or the IBT of the installationof the cameras. After it appeared from video recorded by a camerain the men’s locker room camera that Walt may have placed someparts in his locker, the company cut his personal lock off thelocker and found parts like those that had been missing. AlthoughWalt had maintained a clean disciplinary record for over twentyyears, he was immediately terminated for theft. The collectivebargaining agreement (CBA) between the company and the IBT makes noreference to the installation of security cameras in the workplacenor to the company’s ability to search employee lockers. The CBAdoes require that all terminations be based upon just cause, whichis not defined. However, progressive discipline is specificallyrequired before any termination may be imposed.

If the IBT filed an unfair labor practice charge withthe National Labor Relations Board challenging only the company’sinstallation of the cameras and its search of Walt’s locker (notchallenging Walt’s termination), what would be the likely basis forthe charge? What issues should the IBT raise andWHY?

If the IBT filed a grievance on Walt’s behalf pursuantto the terms of the collective bargaining agreement challenging histermination, what would be the likely basis for the grievance? Whatissues should the IBT raise and WHY?

Please be very very detailed.