Legal Document

517 U.S. 781116 S.Ct. 1754135 L.Ed.2d 64 AUCIELLO IRON WORKS, INC.v.NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARDCertiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for First Circuit. No. 95-668. Supreme Argued April 22, 1996 Decided June 3, Syllabus* The day after petitioner Auciello Iron Works's outstanding contract offer was accepted by its employees' collective-bargaining representative (Union), disavowed agreement because good-faith doubt, based on knowledge acquired before offer's acceptance, that a majority employees supported Union. National Labor Relations Board ruled, inter alia, Auciello's withdrawal from it an unfair labor practice in violation Act and ordered be reduced formal written instrument. Circuit enforced order as reasonable. Held: reasonably concluded employer commits when disavows doubt about union's status at time made, arises facts known union offer. Pp. 4-10. (a) In efforts achieve Act's object industrial peace stability fostered relationships, see e.g., Fall River Dyeing & Finishing Corp. v. NLRB, 482 U. S. 27, 38, has held is entitled to, conclusive presumption during agreement's term, up three years, see, e.g,. NLRB Burns Int'l Security Services, Inc., 406 272, 290, n. 12. Upon contract's expiration, may rebut showing founded sufficient objective basis, support. Curtin Matheson Scientific, 494 775, 778. assertion raise latter defense even period apparently begun run upon acceptance rejected. 4-6. (b) same need repose first prompted adopt rule presuming term also led this case out exception benefit with doubts arising antedating contract. Board's judgment matter prevail. argument case-by-case determinations appropriate asserting place bright-line cutting off opportunity moment apparent formation fails point anything unreasonable position. Its approach generally allows companies adequate chance act their preacceptance formation, view would encourage bad-faith bargaining employers. could conclude giving employers flexibility raising not worth skewing relationships such one-sided leverage, fact any might vulnerable postformation challenge hardly serve goal achieving promoting stable relationships. Moreover, rejection position compelled statutory right bargain collectively through representatives own choosing refrain doing so. suspicion faced employer's benevolence workers' champion against certified union, there nothing short leash vindicator organizational freedom. 6-9. (c) Garment Worker's 366 731, 738-739, does compel reversal; concerning recognition agreements inconsistent decision. found precontractual, inadequate support been accepted. 9-10. 60 F. 3d 24, affirmed. Justice Souter delivered opinion Court. 1 question here whether disavow had union. We hold challenging under these circumstances Section(s) 8(a)(1) (5) Act, 49 Stat. 452, 453, amended, 29 C. 158(a)(1) (5). I. 2 Petitioner Works Hudson, Massachusetts, 23 production maintenance question. After election 1977, Shopmen's Local 501, a/w International Association Bridge, Structural, Ornamental Workers, AFL-CIO, employees. Over following company Union were able negotiate series agreements, one which expired September 25, 1988. Negotiations new unsuccessful throughout October 1988, however, made 14, went strike. continued, nonetheless, and, November 17, presented complete proposal. On 18, picketing stopped, nine days later, Sunday evening, telegraphed very next day, told doubted unit's Union, reason denied duty continue negotiating. traced offer, including 9 crossed picket line, 13 given signed forms indicating resignation 16 expressed dissatisfaction 3 January 1989, General Counsel issued administrative complaint charging NLRA.1 An law judge existed between parties violated Act. 303 N. L. R. B. 562 (1991). affirmed judge's decision2 ; treated claim irrelevant reduce Ibid. But applied enforcement order, declined ground adequately explained refusal consider Union's status. 980 2d 804 (1992). remand, supplemental justify position, 317 364 (1995), thereafter resting "policy choice [both] . reasonable quite persuasive." 27 (CA1 1995). granted certiorari, 516 ___ (1996), now affirm. II. A. 4 stability, providing orderly resolution disputes workers See 141(b); 38 (1987) (Fall Dyeing). To ends, adopted various presumptions existence within unit, precondition service exclusive representative. Cf. id., 37-39. two are presumptions. A "usually year following" certification Id., 37. likewise precedent conclusive3 agreement, years. 12 (1972); Gorman, Basic Text Law: Unionization Collective Bargaining 9, pp. 54-59 (1976). "These so much absolute certainty will erode," Dyeing, S., "stability relationships." (internal quotation marks omitted). They address our fickle nature "enabl[ing] concentrate obtaining fairly administering agreement" without worrying immediate risk decertification "remov[ing] temptation part avoid bargaining" effort undermine 5 There third presumption, though one. At end or expiration becomes rebuttable 778 (1990); 6, infra. Then, overcome (when, example, defending charge) "by that, [its] bargain, either (1) did enjoy support, (2) `good-faith' support." Matheson, supra, (emphasis original).4 asks 6 said allow control timing thus "`sit' accepted." B., 370. thought risks associated "unilatera[l] [over] vital process," ibid., relationship, 374, outweigh theory follow vindicating ultimately proved sound. 7 affirm decision case, indeed, no invoke full measure "considerable deference" due, 786, virtue charge develop national policy, Beth Israel Hospital 437 483, 500-501 (1978), interstitial rulemaking "rational consistent Act." 787. 8 It tempting think soon little lost wiping contractual slate clean, if can make convincing claims. view, loss slight. repudiating ostensible why should well into term? implicitly agrees provide some cutoff, but argues limit "reasonable time" repudiate Brief 26-32. That is, seeks formation. desire natural, just have acted effectively case. knew line number least all received dated five date. During week preceding contract, alternatives nothing. withdrawn then, like employees, petitioned representation election. Employees, 475 192, 198 (1986).5 "[I]f determines, investigation hearing, exists, directs secret ballot certifies result." Following withdrawal, refused further basis leaving practice, defend doubt. And, course, investigate while continued fulfil good faith generous opportunities acceptance. 10 may, sure, cases where requires prompt action,6 negotiators nimble, price making more sluggish too high, since bargaining. As it, genuine invited go bargaining, prospect locking favorable could, wished, then challenge. Here, telegram withdrawing declining negotiation Rits (or petitioning decertification), flames fanned, obliged further, difficult obtain. saving until formed, worse than had. say scruples 38-39; Franks Bros. Co. 321 702, 705 (1944). 11 Nor do we find compelling contention "to choosing" so, 157, compels us reject Although take seriously command respect "the free employees" "promot[e] relationships," omitted), rejected refuse whenever evidence longer "To rely rights refusing formally designated conducive [industrial peace], inimical it." Brooks 348 96, 103 (1954). accordingly subject petition they want file Merits aside, claims Workers 731 (1961), reversal, not. bona fide mistaken belief cannot purporting recognize newly organized yet uncertified. upheld concern deal "`a marked advantage over other [union] securing adherence employees,'" 738 (quoting Pennsylvania Greyhound Lines, 261, 267 (1938)), thereby distorting process elect agent choice. 738-739. contrast, unit ample initiate chose With entire consistency, deny power gained recognizing flows status, them disturb (without more) retained Good-faith neither force precipitate nor destroy recognized contracting authority intentional delay. symmetry positions. 14 ordered. * syllabus constitutes prepared Reporter Decisions convenience reader. Detroit Lumber Co., 200 321, 337. Section 8(a) provides: "It shall employer-- "(1) interfere with, restrain, coerce exercise guaranteed section 157 title; "(5) his provisions 159(a) title." 158(a). "Employees self-organization, form, join, assist organizations, choosing, engage concerted activities purpose collective mutual aid protection, except extent affected requiring membership organization condition employment authorized 158(a)(3) 157. developed criteria assess Appalachian Shale Products 121 1160 (1958), always coincide those govern general area law, Ben Franklin Nat. Bank, 278 986, 993-994 (1986). accept purposes deciding conclusion formed meaning Our review limited narrow withdraw once possessed enough assert suggested itself invalid ab initio lacked Because substantiation required greater 788, (1990), taken excuse otherwise valid Respondent 26, 7. concedes failed advance answer Counsel's complaint, Tr. Oral Arg. 28, never considered question, sought certiorari only bound context Employer doubt." Pet. Cert. i. Accordingly, properly decline it. This unusual circumstances, 98-99 (1954) (union dissolution, alia); T. Kheel, Law 13A.04[5], p. 13A-26 (1995); 56-57 (1976), none present here. maintains reversal appears asserted 19-21. issue timing. "in evaluating doubting must presume striker replacements oppose union." 777 original). discuss affect outcome assume, deciding, filingof trigger "blocking charge" Solicitor implicated unlawful recognition. 31, 10. note circumstance leading harbor accepts agreed examine occurrences basis. 364, 374-375 (1995).

Classification Label: 6