Morio v. North American Soccer League
1980 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9324, 106 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2761, 501 F. Supp. 633 (1980)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An employer's duty to bargain with a newly certified union arises immediately upon certification, and this duty is not suspended while the employer pursues an appeal of the certification order.
Facts:
- The North American Soccer League (NASL) and its member clubs employed professional soccer players.
- On September 1, 1978, the North American Soccer League Players Association (the Union) was certified by the National Labor Relations Board as the exclusive collective bargaining representative for the players.
- Following the certification, the NASL and its clubs refused to bargain with the Union.
- After certification, the NASL unilaterally changed employment conditions by requiring players to obtain permission for footwear choices.
- The NASL also unilaterally initiated a new winter indoor soccer season, increased the length of the summer season, and reduced maximum roster sizes from 30 to 26 players.
- Commencing after the Union's certification, the NASL and its clubs bypassed the Union to solicit, negotiate, and enter into individual employment contracts directly with players.
Procedural Posture:
- The North American Soccer League Players Association (the Union) filed a petition for a representation election with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB).
- The NLRB directed an election, which the Union won, and on September 1, 1978, the NLRB certified the Union as the players' exclusive bargaining representative.
- The North American Soccer League (NASL) refused to bargain, prompting the Union to file an unfair labor practice (ULP) charge.
- The NLRB found the NASL guilty of a ULP and issued an order directing it to bargain with the Union.
- The NASL, as appellant, appealed the Board's order to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, which enforced the order.
- The NASL then filed a petition for a writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court.
- During this appeal process, the Union filed additional ULP charges with the NLRB, alleging the NASL was making unilateral changes and bargaining directly with players.
- The NLRB's Regional Director (Petitioner) consolidated these charges and issued a complaint, with hearings commencing before an Administrative Law Judge.
- Pending the final disposition of these consolidated charges by the Board, the Regional Director filed the present action in U.S. District Court seeking a temporary injunction against the NASL and its clubs (Respondents).
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 an employer's refusal to bargain, its unilateral implementation of changes to employment conditions, and its direct negotiation of individual contracts with employees, all occurring after a union's certification but while the employer appeals that certification, constitute unfair labor practices warranting a temporary injunction under Section 10(j) of the National Labor Relations Act?
Opinions:
Majority - Motley, District Judge
Yes. An employer commits unfair labor practices warranting temporary injunctive relief when it refuses to bargain with a certified union, unilaterally alters terms of employment, and deals directly with employees, even while an appeal of the union's certification is pending. The court reasoned that the duty to bargain commences immediately upon the union's certification. Pursuing an appeal does not suspend this obligation unless a stay of the certification order is granted. By unilaterally changing rules regarding footwear, season length, and roster sizes, the NASL failed to bargain over mandatory subjects. Furthermore, by negotiating individual contracts, the NASL violated its 'negative duty not to bargain with individual employees,' a principle established in cases like Medo Photo Supply Corp. v. NLRB. The court found that these individual contracts, both pre- and post-certification, were used to 'forestall collective bargaining' and undermine the Union's status as the exclusive representative, making a temporary injunction 'just and proper' to protect the purposes of the National Labor Relations Act pending a final decision by the Board.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the principle that an employer cannot use the appellate process as a shield to ignore its immediate duty to bargain with a newly certified union. It affirms that a union's authority attaches at the moment of certification, not after all appeals are exhausted. The court's willingness to issue a Section 10(j) injunction, including an order to render individual contracts voidable, demonstrates the judiciary's role in preventing employers from eroding a union's power and making the collective bargaining process futile during protracted litigation. This case serves as a strong precedent for the NLRB to seek and obtain interim relief to preserve the union's bargaining strength while administrative and judicial reviews are pending.
