Opinion ID: 186308
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Withdrawal from Multi-employer Bargaining Units

Text: 14 Until 1958, the NLRB permitted both employers and unions to abandon multi-employer bargaining units at any time, even in the middle of bargaining. Charles D. Bonanno Linen Serv., Inc. v. NLRB, 454 U.S. 404, 410, 102 S.Ct. 720, 724, 70 L.Ed.2d 656 (1982) (collecting NLRB decisions). In Retail Associates, however, the Board established a set of rules regulating withdrawal from multi-employer bargaining units, as follows: 15 We [will] refuse to permit the withdrawal of an employer or a union from a duly established multiemployer bargaining unit, except upon adequate written notice given prior to the date set by the contract for modification, or to the agreed-upon date to begin the multiemployer negotiations. Where actual bargaining negotiations based on the existing multiemployer unit have begun, we [will] not permit, except on mutual consent, an abandonment of the unit upon which each side has committed itself to the other, absent unusual circumstances. 16 120 N.L.R.B. at 395. In reaching this decision, the Board relied upon the fundamental purpose of the Act of fostering and maintaining stability in bargaining relationships: 17 While mutual consent of the union and employers involved is a basic ingredient supporting the appropriateness of a multiemployer bargaining unit, the stability requirement of the Act dictates that reasonable controls limit the parties as to the time and manner that withdrawal will be permitted from an established multiemployer bargaining unit. 18 Id. at 393. 19 Following the decision in Retail Associates, the Board determined that unusual circumstances that would justify withdrawal after the commencement of bargaining normally would be found only when an employer is subject to extreme financial pressures or when a bargaining unit is substantially fragmented. Charles D. Bonanno Linen, 454 U.S. at 411 & n. 6, 102 S.Ct. at 724 & n. 6 (citing authorities). Apart from these circumstances, the Board has construed unusual circumstances very narrowly. See Decision, slip op. at 6, J.A. at 765 (describing Board decisions refusing to find unusual circumstances). Most pertinent for this case, the Board in Chel LaCort addressed the situation [ ] where the multiemployer association fails, either deliberately or otherwise, to inform its employer-members of the start of negotiations. 315 N.L.R.B. at 1036. Noting that the unusual circumstances exception has historically been limited to only the most extreme situations, id., the Board decided that the situation in that case did not warrant an extension of the exception. Id. at 1036-37.