Veronica Lewis was employed by Spann Building Maintenance at the Meramec Building in St. Louis. In January, Spann announced a reduction in force at the Meramec Building. Although Lewis was affected, under the collective bargaining agreement, her seniority level entitled her to reassignment to another location serviced by Spann.
Lewis initially refused to transfer because of transportation problems, but later tried to avail herself of the contractual provision.
One day in February, Lewis confronted her supervisor in the Meramec Building about the transfer. Following a loud exchange, Lewis was first suspended and then terminated for improper conduct and the use of abusive language toward the supervisor.
The union filed a grievance on behalf of Lewis. Under the labor agreement, there was a three-step grievance procedure culminating in arbitration at the option of the union.
Lewis's grievance progressed through the first and second steps without settlement.
The union then notified Spann of its desire to arbitrate the grievance and twice requested that an arbitrator be selected. Settlement negotiations continued, and Spann eventually offered reinstatement to Lewis without back pay or seniority. When the reinstatement offer was rejected, the union decided internally that the purpose of the grievance process had been satisfied and that the union would not pursue arbitration. This decision was not communicated to Spann, however, and the grievance, as well as the request for selection of an arbitrator, was not withdrawn. Dissatisfied with the union's decision, Lewis filed an unfair labor practice charge with the NLRB, alleging that Spann had violated Section 8(a)(1) by discharging her in retaliation for the exercise of her rights under the collective bargaining agreement.

What factors must the Board consider before hearing Lewis's complaint? Will Lewis's unfair labor practice charge be heard by the Board? Decide. [Lewis v. NLRB, 123 LRRM 2469 (8th Cir.)]