Opinion ID: 394185
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Failure to Bargain in Good Faith.

Text: 25 The Board found that (r)espondent failed to bargain in good faith concerning the terms and conditions of employment for employees in the inside unit. This finding is supported by substantial evidence on the record considered as a whole. 26 Respondent claims it was willing to negotiate further over its proposals, but the strike ended the bargaining. See Neon Sign Corp. v. NLRB, 602 F.2d 1203, 1205 (5th Cir. 1979). Respondent, however, took the initiative in cancelling the last bargaining session, claiming the union had lost its majority support. We agree with the Board that if the negotiations became truncated in a manner depriving Respondent of a full opportunity to bargain over non-economic matters, the fault lies primarily with Respondent. 27 The Board based its finding of bad faith upon the conclusion that respondent made proposals with the object in mind of forcing a breakdown in negotiations. Respondent proposed an extremely strong management rights package that would have required the union effectively to abrogate its representation of the employees. Respondent proposed to establish a no-strike/no-picket policy; to abolish union security, the right of union representatives to visit the plant, and super-seniority for shop stewards; to deny the employees' rights to arbitration of grievances and to respect picket lines; and to relieve respondent of its duties to notify the union of new hiring, to hire first through the union hiring hall, and to contribute to the union pension fund. 28 We should be cautious in inferring motivation from proposal content since  '(t)here are too many reasons why an employer who is willing to contract with a union might wish to ... maintain an open shop'  K-Mart Corp. v. NLRB, 626 F.2d 704, 706 (9th Cir. 1980) (quoting Cox, The Duty to Bargain in Good Faith, 71 Harv.L.Rev. 1401, 1419 (1958)). Nevertheless, proposal content supports an inference of intent to frustrate agreement where, as here, the entire spectrum of proposals put forward by a party is so consistently and predictably unpalatable to the other party that the proposer should know agreement is impossible. 29 Although the respondent proferred economic justifications in support of its management rights package, the Board found the cost implications were so theoretical and marginal as to be pretextual. The economic justification offered in support of respondent's proposal to delete the union-security clause is illustrative. Respondent contended that the union was applying the clauses in an unlawful manner, and that retention of the clause could be expected to lead to litigation, and thus expense, for respondent. There was no convincing documentation showing that the union was applying the clause in an illegal manner. We have reviewed the record and agree with the Board that respondent was grasping at straws in speculating over the potential litigation cost of retaining the clause. These circumstances supported an inference of bad faith. Patently improbable justifications for a bargaining position will support an inference that the position is not maintained in good faith. By the same token, 'adhering to an untenable legal position during the course of negotiations is inconsistent with the obligation to bargain in good faith.'  Queen Mary Restaurants Corp. v. NLRB, 560 F.2d 403, 409 (9th Cir. 1977) (quoting Fraser & Johnston Co. v. NLRB, 469 F.2d 1259, 1263 (9th Cir. 1972)). 30 The finding that the respondent did not bargain with the intent of reaching an agreement is also supported by events surrounding the withdrawal of recognition. When the union called a strike, respondent advised several employees they would have to resign from the union to return to work. Respondent typed a letter of resignation for one employee and furnished postage and mailed letters of resignation for two others. Contrary to respondent's contention, these events occurred prior to the last bargaining session at which respondent withdrew recognition. 31 Finally, the Board relied upon respondent's declared objective of going 'nonunion.'  The Board found this declaration in a letter written by respondent to the union shortly before the master agreement expired. The letter stated, we do not wish to continue in the union, however we are willing to sit at the bargaining table and bargain with you if you wish. Although the letter is ambiguous, we cannot say the Board's interpretation is improbable, especially in light of subsequent events. Accordingly, the Board properly considered the letter as evidence of bad faith. 32 ENFORCEMENT is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part, and the case REMANDED in part to the Board for further preceedings in accordance with this opinion.