CINCINNATI, Aug. 21 (UPI) -- A federal appellate court in Cincinnati ruled this week that faxes are not necessarily legally binding if the receiving party does not know the communication is coming. The case stemmed from a 1991-92 strike by 200 Clow Water System Co. workers who were represented by the United Steelworkers. The court ruled the Coshocton company, a division of McWane Inc., did not violate federal labor law when it hired replacement workers after the union transmitted an unconditional fax offer to return to work in February 1992. The union sent its offer by fax at 4:35 p.m. on a Friday, 25 minutes before the plant closed for the day. The intended recipient claimed he checked for any communications at 4:30, and when he saw there weren't any, went home. On Saturday, Clow hired 80 replacement workers. The National Labor Relations Board later held that actual knowledge of the fax was not required. The board said the parties had communicated by facsimile during their negotiations, and that the facsimile was sent and received. But the appellate court said the union had sent only four facsimile transmissions during 13 months of negotiations. ``All of these facsimiles contained contract proposals -- a communication intended to be examined and considered, not a communication having legal import in and of itself,'' the court said, ordering the NLRB ruling against Clow must be re-evaluated. The court said facsimile and electronic mail are becoming increasingly common forms of business communication, however, both parties must agree to the use of such media and must be notified when messages are sent. ``The critical part of this case is that (the fax) was sent only 25 minutes before the plant closed,'' David Peck, a lawyer with Taft, Stettinius & Hollister, the law firm that represented Clow, told United Press International Wednesday. ``Normal courtesy is to call first and again after to confirm that a fax has been received.'' The union claimed Clow committed an unfair labor practice by permanently replacing economic strikers after the union made an unconditional offer, as required by federal law, to return to work. But the court said the fax transmission itself wasn't the issue. ``The key to this case is simply fair notice,'' the court said in its decision. ``If the parties did not agree to the method of communication utilized, and if there is no pattern of conduct reflecting acquiescence to the method of communication utilized, we will not impute notice of the communication to the recipient. ``Communication by facsimile has simplified and streamlined the way in which business in conducted in this country,'' the court added. ``This technological advance provides a valuable service and benefit, and our holding should not be taken as an indication that parties should not use facsimiles to conduct their affairs.'' -- C O P Y R I G H T * R E M I N D E R
This article is Copyright 1996 by United Press International. All articles in the clari.* news hierarchy are Copyrighted and licenced to ClariNet Communications Corp. for distribution. Except for articles in the biz.clarinet.sample newsgroup, only paid subscribers may access these articles. Any unauthorized access, reproduction or transmission is strictly prohibited. We offer a reward to the person who first provides us with information that helps stop those who distribute or receive our news feeds without authorization. Please send reports to reward@clari.net. [Use info@clari.net for sales or other inquiries.]
Details on use of ClariNet material and other info can be found in the user documentation section of our web page: http://www.clari.net. You can also read ClariNet news from your Web browser.
_______________________ Regards, Nothing great was ever achieved without enthusiasm. -Ralph Waldo Emerson Joseph Reagle http://rpcp.mit.edu/~reagle/home.html reagle@mit.edu E0 D5 B2 05 B6 12 DA 65 BE 4D E3 C1 6A 66 25 4E