Barton Brands, Ltd. v. National Labor Relations Board
529 F.2d 793 (1976)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A union breaches its duty of fair representation and commits an unfair labor practice when it causes an employer to alter seniority rights in a manner that disadvantages a minority of employees, if the action is taken for arbitrary or political reasons without an objective justification.
Facts:
- On August 31, 1969, Barton Brands, Ltd. ('Barton') purchased the assets of Glencoe Distilling Company.
- Following the acquisition, Barton and the Union agreed to merge the two workforces and 'dovetail' their seniority lists, giving former Glencoe employees full credit for their prior years of service.
- This dovetailing agreement was approved by a vote of both the original Barton employees and the former Glencoe employees.
- Subsequently, Barton's business plans to build a new facility failed to materialize, leading to layoffs and increased job security concerns among the original Barton employees.
- During 1972 contract negotiations, the Union, pressured by the larger group of original Barton employees, proposed 'endtailing' the former Glencoe employees for layoff and recall purposes.
- Barton eventually agreed to the new provision, which effectively stripped the former Glencoe employees of their pre-acquisition seniority for purposes of layoffs, treating them as if they were hired on September 1, 1969.
- As a direct result of this change, twelve former Glencoe employees were laid off who would have otherwise retained their jobs under the original dovetailing agreement.
Procedural Posture:
- A laid-off former Glencoe employee filed an unfair labor practice charge with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB).
- The NLRB's General Counsel issued complaints against both the Union and Barton Brands.
- An Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) held a hearing and subsequently dismissed the complaints.
- The NLRB's General Counsel appealed the ALJ's decision to the full Board.
- The NLRB reversed the ALJ's decision, finding that the Union and Barton had committed unfair labor practices.
- The Union and Barton petitioned the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit for review of the NLRB's order; the NLRB cross-applied for enforcement of its order.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a union violate its duty of fair representation by negotiating a change to a collective bargaining agreement that reduces the seniority rights of a minority of employees solely to placate the political desires of the majority of the unit?
Opinions:
Majority - Bauer, Circuit Judge.
Yes. A union breaches its duty of fair representation when its decisions are made solely for the benefit of a stronger, more politically favored group over a minority group. Although a union has a 'wide range of reasonableness' in serving its members, its actions cannot be arbitrary or based on political expediency. The court reasoned that the duty of fair representation exists to compensate employees for losing their right to bargain individually. Allowing a union to arbitrarily harm a minority to placate a majority would violate this duty. Citing cases like Red Ball Motor Freight and Miranda Fuel, the court held that such arbitrary discrimination constitutes an unfair labor practice under § 8(b)(2) of the NLRA because it unlawfully encourages union membership by demonstrating the union's power to punish disfavored groups. The court distinguished this case from prior rulings permitting endtailing at the time of an initial merger, emphasizing that here, employees lost seniority rights they had already been granted and had relied upon.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies that a union's duty of fair representation imposes substantive limits on its bargaining power, even when its actions are supported by a majority of members. It establishes that revoking previously granted seniority rights without a legitimate, objective justification constitutes arbitrary action and is an unfair labor practice. The ruling shifts the legal inquiry from the subjective motivations of union leaders to whether the union's action itself has a rational basis beyond mere political pandering. This precedent strengthens protections for minority factions within bargaining units and requires unions to justify decisions that have a disparate negative impact on a subset of their members.
