Carey Salt Co. v. National Labor Relations Board
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 23430
| 5th Cir. | 2013Background
- Carey Salt negotiated a new collective-bargaining agreement with Local Union 14425 starting February 2010 after forty years of bargaining history.
- Carey Salt unilaterally implemented offers during negotiations on two occasions, prompting Union strikes in April 2010.
- Core disputed issues included overtime distribution, alternate shifts, and cross-assignment; union concessions on benefits emerged, but not on core issues.
- On March 18, the Union requested a final offer for membership feedback with a plan to resume talks if rejected.
- Carey Salt delivered a March 19 final offer, omitting some previously discussed items but including a wage increase; Union rejected it on March 24.
- On March 31, after Union rejection, Carey Salt declared impasse and began unilateral changes; this led to continued bargaining breakdown and a strike.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether March 31 impasse existed | Carey Salt contends impasse existed due to prior final offer and lack of progress. | Board/ALJ find no impasse due to bad-faith conduct and ongoing discussions. | No impermissible impasse; substantial evidence supports no-impasse finding for March 31 |
| Whether March 19 offer was part of a plan to frustrate negotiations | Carey Salt claims March 19 regressive offer was part of a plan to frustrate agreement. | Board finds March 19 not legally part of an overall plan to frustrate, regressive but not linked to bad faith. | Regressive March 19 offer not proven part of overall plan to frustrate agreement |
| Whether May 25 offer violated good-faith bargaining | Carey Salt alleges May 25 was a legitimate move amid negotiations. | Board found May 25 an unlawful regressive attempt to frustrate agreement. | Substantial evidence does not support bad-faith finding for May 25; vacate that portion |
| Whether June 3–22 conduct unlawfully conditioned bargaining on concessions | Carey Salt contends it sought core-issue alignment as path to an agreement, not a condition to bargain. | Board found unlawful conditioning of mandatory bargaining on concessions. | Substantial evidence supports unlawful conditioning of bargaining during June period |
| Whether strikers’ treatment violated NLRA protections | Carey Salt argues strike actions and recall procedures were lawful responses to impasse. | Board held that the strike was an unfair labor practice strike and recall by seniority was required. | Strike deemed unlawful unfair labor practice; unlawful recall by seniority enforced |
Key Cases Cited
- Huck Mfg. Co. v. NLRB, 693 F.2d 1186 (5th Cir. 1982) (imparting impasse standards and good-faith bargaining requirements)
- Powell Elec. Mfg. Co., 906 F.2d 1007 (5th Cir. 1990) (impasse framework and bargaining futility considerations)
- Ins. Agents’ Int’l Union, AFL-CIO, 361 U.S. 477 (U.S. 1960) (duty to bargain in good faith requires serious intent to adjust differences)
- Bonanno Linen Serv., Inc. v. NLRB, 454 U.S. 404 (U.S. 1982) (impasse context and meaning of bargaining conduct)
- Saunders House v. NLRB, 719 F.2d 683 (3d Cir. 1983) (movement on important issues can preclude impasse, depending on context)
- Glomac Plastics, Inc. v. NLRB, 592 F.2d 94 (2d Cir. 1979) (regressive proposals and good-faith bargaining standards)
- Universal Camera Corp. v. NLRB, 340 U.S. 474 (U.S. 1951) (review of record evidence on credibility)
- Valley Oil Co., 210 N.L.R.B. 370 (NLRB 1974) (contextual analysis for withdrawal of agreed terms)
- NLRB v. Tex-Tan, Inc., 318 F.2d 472 (5th Cir. 1963) (impasse and bargaining standards)
- NLRB v. Hi-Way Billboards, Inc., 473 F.2d 649 (5th Cir. 1973) (evidence linking conduct to impasse assessment)