Opinion ID: 379143
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Withdrawal from the Multi-Employer Unit

Text: 16 The respondents contend that their withdrawal from the multi-employer bargaining unit should allow them to start anew in their relationship with the Union. That is, they wish to be viewed as single employers faced with the Union's initial claim for recognition. 17 In four previous cases 5 we have rejected that approach and have determined that the presumption survives an employer's withdrawal from the multi-employer bargaining unit. 6 18 The bargaining history of the respondents shows that the same fact patterns have occurred. Thus, the conclusions reached in our previous cases apply equally as well here. 19 Moreover, our conclusion that the presumption survives the respondents' withdrawal from the multi-employer unit is a recognition that the presumption is also grounded in policy, not just probability. NLRB v. Tahoe Nugget, 584 F.2d at 302. The most valued objective of the Act is industrial peace. Application of the presumption is a policy determination by the Board that industrial peace is more likely to be achieved by maintaining continuity in the bargaining structure. 20 We have not failed to observe that, in so deciding, the Board has favored continuity in the bargaining structure over the enhancement of employee free choice. However, the Board's decision, while not enhancing employee rights, does not adversely affect those rights. As always, the employees may exercise their freedom of choice by petitioning the Board for an election to choose whether to have another representative or to have no union representation at all. Adherence to the presumption does not stifle that right. 21 The presumption does make it more difficult for the respondents to rely on employee rights in refusing to bargain with their employees' designated representative. However, as we stated in Tahoe Nugget, at 301, (I)n refusing to bargain because of an alleged decline in union adherents, the employer is acting as vicarious champion of its employees, a role no one has asked it to assume. See, Brooks v. NLRB, 348 U.S. 96, 103, 75 S.Ct. 176, 99 L.Ed. 125 (1954). 22 We thus believe that the Board has not abused its discretion in applying the presumption of majority union support here where employers have withdrawn from a multi-employer unit.