1. Assess the “delayed start” tactic used by the union in this case.
2. What were the consequences of the unsound advice from the union in this case?

[The union is the certified collective bargaining representative of LPNs employed by the Alexandria Clinic. In August 1999, after months of unsuccessful bargaining, the clinic announced that it would implement its final offer. In response, the nurses voted to strike. The union gave the 10 days' written notice required by § 8(g), advising the clinic that the strike would commence at 8:00 AM on September 10, 1999. However, the union secretly advised the nurses that they could delay the commencement of the strike up to 72 hours.1 The strike leaders decided that the bargaining unit nurses should report for duty on September 10 and walk off the job at noon. They did not notify the clinic of this plan. On the morning of September 10, temporary replacement nurses hired by the clinic reported before 8:00. Fourteen bargaining unit nurses also reported for duty without warning. The clinic responded by having the replacements wait in a lounge area so as not to disturb the patients. The bargaining unit nurses left just before noon, again without warning the clinic or their supervising physicians. Eight other nurses not on duty that morning later joined the strike. Patient care was not affected, as the replacement nurses were present to take over at noon on September 10. Citing the strike delay without notice, the clinic fired the striking nurses for engaging in unlawful activity. After a hearing, the administrative law judge held that the union did not violate § 8(g) and therefore the clinic committed an unfair labor practice by discharging the nurses. A divided Board reversed. The union petitioned the Court of Appeals to review the Board's decision.]
LOKEN, C. J.…
The Board [stated]:
As made clear in Section 8(g), the "appropriate period" is the waiting period after a notice that gives the date and time for a strike. Obviously, if there is no notice, there can be no lawful strike.
Concededly, in the instant case, there was a notice and the employees did not strike within the period set by the notice. However, the employees did strike thereafter, and there was no notice with respect to that strike.… In sum, the strike was without notice, and it was therefore unlawful.
* * *
… [T]his conclusion results in the nurses losing their protected employee status under Section 8(d) for engaging in an unlawful strike, and subjects them to lawful discharge.
… The Union delayed the strike a disruptive onehalf day with no notice of the delay. Prior to this case, the Board had never upheld this tactic.
The nurses engaged in a strike in violation of § 8(g), thereby lost their protected status by reason of § 8(d), and were lawfully discharged by their employer. The individual nurses may have acted in good faith in relying upon unsound advice from the Union and its legal counsel. But that does not justify rewarding their unlawful activity by imposing a back pay and reinstatement remedy on their employer, whose conduct was entirely lawful. The petition for review is denied.
[Denied.]