Charles D. Bonanno Linen Service, Inc. v. NLRB
454 U.S. 404 (1982)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A bargaining impasse, by itself, is not an 'unusual circumstance' sufficient to justify an employer's unilateral withdrawal from a multiemployer bargaining unit after negotiations have commenced.
Facts:
- Charles D. Bonanno Linen Service, Inc. (Bonanno) was a member of the New England Linen Supply Association (Association), a ten-member multiemployer group that negotiated with Teamsters Local No. 25 (Union).
- On February 19, 1975, Bonanno authorized the Association to represent it in upcoming collective bargaining negotiations.
- By May 15, 1975, after several bargaining sessions, the Association and the Union reached a bargaining impasse over the method of driver compensation.
- On June 23, 1975, the Union initiated a selective strike against Bonanno, and in response, most other Association members locked out their drivers.
- The stalemate continued for several months with sporadic, unsuccessful meetings.
- On November 21, 1975, Bonanno notified the Association and the Union that it was withdrawing from the multiemployer unit due to the ongoing impasse.
- Following Bonanno's purported withdrawal, the Association and the Union continued to negotiate and reached a final agreement on a new contract in April 1976.
Procedural Posture:
- Teamsters Local No. 25 filed an unfair labor practice charge against Bonanno with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB).
- An Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) concluded that Bonanno's withdrawal was not excused by any unusual circumstances and constituted an unfair labor practice.
- The NLRB affirmed the ALJ's findings and ordered Bonanno to sign and implement the collective-bargaining agreement negotiated by the Association.
- The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit granted the NLRB's petition to enforce its order.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve a conflict among the Courts of Appeals on this issue.
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 bargaining impasse, by itself, constitute an 'unusual circumstance' justifying an employer's unilateral withdrawal from a multiemployer bargaining unit?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice White
No. A bargaining impasse does not constitute an 'unusual circumstance' justifying unilateral withdrawal from a multiemployer bargaining unit. The Court deferred to the National Labor Relations Board's (NLRB) judgment that the stability of multiemployer bargaining units is a crucial goal of national labor policy. The Board reasonably concluded that an impasse is merely a temporary deadlock or hiatus in negotiations, not a fundamental breakdown of the bargaining relationship. Permitting withdrawal at impasse would undermine the utility of group bargaining, as parties might intentionally create an impasse to escape an unfavorable agreement. The possibility of selective strikes or temporary interim agreements with individual employers does not alter this conclusion, as the Board permissibly determined these tactics are part of the economic pressure inherent in bargaining and do not necessarily fragment the unit, so long as the interim agreements are not permanent and separate.
Dissenting - Chief Justice Burger
Yes. A prolonged impasse, coupled with economic warfare like a selective strike and lockout, should justify withdrawal. The Board's rule creates an unwarranted imbalance of economic weapons, allowing a union to 'divide and conquer' by negotiating interim agreements with some employers while denying remaining employers the defensive tool of withdrawal. This approach unfairly diminishes the bargaining power of the remaining employers, forcing them to either capitulate to union demands or watch their competitors resume business. The Court's deference to the Board in this instance amounts to 'uncritical judicial rubberstamping' of a policy that damages the very multiemployer bargaining mechanism it purports to protect.
Dissenting - Justice O'Connor
Yes. The Board's absolute rule that an impasse is never an unusual circumstance is flawed because it relies on labels rather than factual analysis. The Board should be required to examine the specific circumstances of a deadlock to determine if it is a 'temporary hiatus' or a 'complete breakdown in negotiations.' A six-month stalemate accompanied by a strike and lockout, as occurred here, is more indicative of a complete breakdown. Similarly, the impact of interim agreements should be assessed on a case-by-case basis, as they can fragment a unit and create a powerful incentive for the signing employer to prolong the dispute. A per se rule that ignores the duration of the impasse and the practical effect of interim agreements does not advance the goal of labor peace.
Concurring - Justice Stevens
The holding is correct because an employer's participation in a multiemployer bargaining unit is voluntary and based on an 'unequivocal intention to be bound.' An employer is free to condition its participation on special terms, such as the right to withdraw if an impasse develops. Bonanno made an unconditional and unequivocal commitment to be bound by group action and did not reserve a right to withdraw at impasse. Having failed to set such a condition at the outset, it cannot unilaterally change the rules in the middle of negotiations.
Analysis:
This decision significantly strengthens the stability of multiemployer bargaining units by severely limiting the ability of individual employers to exit during negotiations. It solidifies the NLRB's authority to set the ground rules for multiemployer bargaining, emphasizing unit integrity over individual employer flexibility. The ruling confirms that an impasse is considered a foreseeable part of the bargaining process, not an 'unusual circumstance' justifying withdrawal under the Board's 'Retail Associates' rule. As a result, the decision shifts bargaining leverage, as unions can use selective strikes and interim agreements to pressure an employer group without fearing that the group will disintegrate in response.
