National Labor Relations Board v. Jones Furniture Mfg. Co., Inc.
200 F.2d 774 (1953)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An employer's statutory duty to bargain collectively with a union is not excused or suspended by the fact that the union has filed an unfair labor practice charge against the employer with the National Labor Relations Board.
Facts:
- A C.I.O. union represented approximately 100 workers at an upholstered furniture manufacturing company in Benton, Arkansas.
- On or about September 15 and 22, 1950, the company granted individual wage increases to employees and posted notices of these increases.
- A strike commenced on October 10, 1950.
- During negotiation meetings on October 12 and November 11, 1950, the company's counsel stated there was no point in continuing negotiations while unfair labor practice charges filed by the union were pending against the company.
- The strike ended on November 13, 1950.
- On March 2, 1951, approximately three and a half months after the strike ended, the union wrote to the company requesting a resumption of negotiations.
- The company ignored the union's letter, and its counsel reiterated that there was no need for further meetings as long as the charges were pending.
Procedural Posture:
- On October 6, 1950, the union filed a charge with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) alleging the respondent company committed an unfair labor practice by refusing to bargain collectively.
- The NLRB's trial examiner found that the respondent had violated Section 8(a)(5) of the National Labor Relations Act.
- The full NLRB affirmed the trial examiner's findings and issued a cease and desist order against the respondent on April 28, 1952.
- The NLRB, as petitioner, petitioned the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, an intermediate federal appellate court, for enforcement of its order against the respondent company.
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 engage in collective bargaining with a union, solely because the union has filed an unfair labor practice charge against the employer, constitute a violation of the duty to bargain under the National Labor Relations Act?
Opinions:
Majority - Woodrough, J.
Yes. An employer's refusal to bargain based on the pendency of an unfair labor practice charge violates its duty to bargain under the National Labor Relations Act. The court found uncontradicted evidence that the respondent company refused to bargain after March 2, 1951, for the sole reason that the union had filed charges against it. Citing precedent from Hartsell Mills Co. v. N.L.R.B., the court held that the pendency of such charges is not a valid defense for a refusal to bargain. The court also rejected the company's argument that it had reached an impasse, noting that the intervening strike and passage of time created a renewed obligation for the company to meet with union representatives and bargain in good faith as mandated by the Act.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the principle that an employer's duty to bargain in good faith is a continuous and independent obligation under the National Labor Relations Act. It clarifies that a union's resort to the NLRB's adjudicatory processes does not suspend this duty. By disallowing the pendency of a charge as a defense, the court prevents employers from using litigation as a tactic to stall negotiations and penalize unions for exercising their statutory rights. This ruling ensures that the channels of collective bargaining and the resolution of unfair labor practice claims can operate concurrently, preserving the integrity of both processes.
