Opinion ID: 185833
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Failure to Timely Request Bargaining

Text: 41 Asserting that Local 364 failed to timely demand bargaining over the effects of its conversion decision, Regal further argues that Local 364 should be deemed to have waived its right to bargain over the conversion decision itself. Because the Board — upholding the ALJ's decision without comment — reasonably concluded that a more prompt response to Regal's conversion decision would have been futile, we reject Regal's challenge. 42 If an employer gives a union advance notice of its intention to make a change to a term or condition of employment, it is incumbent upon the [u]nion to act with due diligence in requesting bargaining in order to avoid waiving any of its claims under the NLRA. Golden Bay Freight Lines, 267 N.L.R.B. 1073, 1080, 1983 WL 24885 (1983). A union is not required to go through the motions of requesting bargaining, however, if it is clear that an employer has made its decision and will not negotiate. Gratiot Cmty. Hosp., 312 N.L.R.B. 1075, 1080, 1993 WL 421718 (1993), enforced in relevant part, 51 F.3d 1255, 1259-60 (6th Cir.1995). The Board does not require futile gestures, id., because [n]otice of a fait accompli is simply not the sort of timely notice upon which the waiver defense is predicated, Int'l Ladies' Garment Workers Union v. NLRB, 463 F.2d 907, 919 (D.C.Cir.1972). 43 On review, Regal argues that Local 364 waived any right it may have had to demand bargaining by not being available to meet until October 8, 1997, almost three months after Regal originally notified the Local of its conversion decision and only days before the decision's implementation. Noting that a formal request to bargain about [Regal's] decision would [have been] futile, the ALJ concluded that Local 364's failure to quickly respond to [Regal's] notice ... is no defense to [Regal's] unilateral action. JDA 19. The record provides substantial support for the ALJ's conclusion. As the General Counsel correctly observes, Regal's July 21, 1997 letter to Local 364 did not ask the [Local] to negotiate a proposal to eliminate the dedicated projectionist position, Br. for Resp't at 46, but simply informed it that the Company has decided to go manager operated in the Akron area theaters and that its decision has the effect of eliminating the projectionist's [sic] positions, JDA 637. Moreover, when the parties finally met in October 1997, Regal steadfastly refused to bargain over its decision, informing the Local that the decision had been made months ago and [could not] be changed. JDA 454. The Board's decision reviewing Regal's untimeliness contention is thus a reasonable one and is therefore affirmed.