Erie Brush & Manufacturing Corp. v. National Labor Relations Board
700 F.3d 17
D.C. Cir.2012Background
- Erie Brush & Manufacturing Corp. (Erie) challenged an NLRB ruling finding it violated 8(a)(5)/(1) by refusing to bargain with SEIU Local 1; Board decision required bargaining and remedies.
- Erie had previously been ordered to recognize and bargain with the Union for at least one year after a prior Seventh Circuit ruling.
- Negotiations from June 2005 to March 2006 focused on non-economic issues first; union security and arbitration were the core noneconomic issues.
- Union negotiator Bridgemon asserted there was no room to compromise on union security or arbitration; Erie insisted on an open shop and opposed arbitration.
- On March 31, 2006, Bridgemon declared the negotiations at impasse on union security/arbitration; Erie then sought mediation, which stalled.
- A decertification petition was later supported by employee signatures suggesting union disfavor, leading Erie to withdraw recognition after the March events.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether there was a lawful impasse before May 10, 2006 | Erie: impasse existed on March 31, 2006 | NLRB: no impasse before May 10, 2006 | No substantial evidence of impasse before May 10; record shows impasse on March 31. |
| Whether an impasse on a single critical issue forecloses bargaining on the whole | Erie: union security/arbitration impasse halted negotiations | Board: impasse may bar entire bargaining if critical issue blocks agreement | Record shows impasse on union security led to breakdown of negotiations. |
| Whether Erie’s bargaining obligation was properly suspended during impasse | Erie: impasse relieved duty to bargain | Board: impasse warranted temporary suspension | Erie was relieved of the duty to bargain during the March 31–end period. |
| Whether the Board’s bargaining-order remedy was proper given the merits | Remedy excessive; merits moot | Remedy appropriate if warranted | Remedy moot because merits reversed; court need not decide remedy. |
Key Cases Cited
- CalMat Co., 331 NLRB 1084 (2000) (impasse factors and reliance on single-issue impasse)
- TruServ Corp. v. NLRB, 254 F.3d 1105 (D.C. Cir. 2001) (defining good-faith impasse and potential for continued negotiations)
- Taft Broadcasting Co., 163 NLRB 475 (1967) (early impasse framework and considerations)
- Laurel Bay Health & Rehabilitation Center v. NLRB, 666 F.3d 1365 (D.C. Cir. 2012) (post-impasse conduct cannot defeat impasse finding)
- Richmond Electrical Services, Inc., 348 NLRB 1001 (2006) (impasse pervading negotiations on critical issue)
- Serramonte Oldsmobile, Inc. v. NLRB, 86 F.3d 233 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (need for concrete evidence of changed circumstances to break impasse)
- Wycoff Steel, Inc., 303 NLRB 517 (1991) (standard for evaluating bargaining impasse)
- Richmond Electrical Services, Inc., 348 NLRB 1001 (2006) (record evidence of insurmountable union-security obstacle)