Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

corporation
respondent

Related Cases

National Football League v. Miller, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2000 WL 335566, 54 U.S.P.Q.2d 1574
View Case »
Vurimindi v. Fuqua School of Business, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2011 WL 3803668
View Case »
Peterson v. Kennedy, 475 U.S. 1122, 106 S.Ct. 1642, 90 L.Ed.2d 187, 122 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2080, 104 Lab.Cas. P 11,793
View Case »
Rodgers v. Georgia Tech Athletic Ass’n, 166 Ga.App. 156, 303 S.E.2d 467, 11 Ed. Law Rep. 1075
View Case »
Pro-Football, Inc. v. Tupa, 428 Md. 198, 51 A.3d 544
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Charles D. Bonanno Linen Service, Inc. v. N.L.R.B., 454 U.S. 404, 102 S.Ct. 720, 70 L.Ed.2d 656, 109 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2257, 92 Lab.Cas. P 13,127

Facts

The case involves Charles D. Bonanno Linen Service, Inc., a Massachusetts corporation, which was part of a multiemployer bargaining unit negotiating with Teamsters Local No. 25. After reaching an impasse in negotiations, the union initiated a selective strike against Bonanno, leading to a lockout by other employers in the association. Bonanno subsequently withdrew from the association and refused to sign a collective-bargaining agreement, prompting the union to file an unfair labor practice claim. The National Labor Relations Board found that Bonanno's withdrawal was not justified by unusual circumstances and ordered Bonanno to sign the agreement.

Petitioner linen supply company was a member of an association formed to negotiate collective-bargaining agreements with respondent truckdrivers' union as a multiemployer unit. When the association and union reached an impasse in bargaining for a proposed agreement, the union initiated a selective strike against petitioner, most of the other members of the association locked out their drivers, and petitioner hired permanent replacements for its striking drivers.

Issue

Whether a bargaining impasse justifies an employer's unilateral withdrawal from a multiemployer bargaining unit.

Whether a bargaining impasse justifies an employer's unilateral withdrawal from a multiemployer bargaining unit.

Rule

Refusal of National Labor Relations Board to accept impasse, standing alone, as unusual circumstance warranting withdrawal of employer from multiemployer bargaining unit was not arbitrary or contrary to law.

Analysis

The court analyzed the Board's reasoning that an impasse is a temporary deadlock in negotiations and does not justify unilateral withdrawal. The Board's position is that allowing withdrawal at impasse would disrupt the collective bargaining process and undermine the stability of the multiemployer unit. The court found that the Board's decision was not arbitrary and was consistent with the goals of the National Labor Relations Act.

The Board has developed a rule which although it may deny an employer a particular economic weapon, does so in the interest of the proper and pre-eminent goal of maintaining the stability of the multiemployer bargaining unit.

Conclusion

The court affirmed the Board's decision, holding that Bonanno's withdrawal from the multiemployer bargaining unit was unjustified and constituted an unfair labor practice.

The bargaining impasse did not justify petitioner's unilateral withdrawal from the multiemployer bargaining unit.

Who won?

The National Labor Relations Board prevailed in this case, as the court upheld its decision that Bonanno's withdrawal from the multiemployer bargaining unit was not justified by the impasse in negotiations. The court recognized the importance of maintaining the stability of multiemployer bargaining units and agreed with the Board's assessment that allowing unilateral withdrawal would undermine collective bargaining efforts.

You must be