Court Opinion

ID: 9428569
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-02 23:24:09.008727+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:23:14.278567
License: Public Domain

Justice Stevens,
concurring.
The Court’s holding today does not impair an employer’s freedom to structure the manner in which it will conduct collective bargaining. Its opinion, which I join, recognizes the voluntary nature of multiemployer bargaining, see ante, at 412, and notes that the Board “neither forces employers into multiemployer units nor erects barriers to withdrawal prior to bargaining.” Ibid.
The mere fact that an employer bargains in conjunction with other employers does not necessarily mean that it must sign any contract that is negotiated by the group. The Board requires that, to be bound by the terms of group negotiation, the members of an employer association must “have indicated from the outset an unequivocal intention to be bound in collective bargaining by group rather than individual action,” and the union representing their employees must “[have] been notified of the formation of the group and the delegation of bargaining authority to it, and [have] assented and entered upon negotiations with the group’s representa*420tive.” Weyerhaeuser Co., 166 N. L. R. B. 299, 299 (1967), enf'd, 130 U. S. App. D. C. 176, 398 F. 2d 770 (1968). This test is well established in the Courts of Appeals. See, e. g., NLRB v. Beckham, Inc., 564 F. 2d 190, 192 (CA5 1977); Komatz Construction, Inc. v. NLRB, 458 F. 2d 317, 321 (CA8 1972); NLRB v. Hart, 453 F. 2d 215, 217 (CA9 1971), cert. denied, 409 U. S. 844 (1972); NLRB v. Dover Tavern Owners’ Assn., 412 F. 2d 725, 727 (CA3 1969). Absent such an unequivocal commitment to be bound by group action, an employer is free to withdraw from group negotiation at any time, or simply to reject the terms of the final group contract. See Komatz Construction, swpra; Ruan Transport Corp., 234 N. L. R. B. 241 (1978). In the instant case, petitioner has never questioned the unequivocal character of its commitment to participate in and to be bound by the results of group negotiation.
The Court’s holding does not preclude an employer from explicitly conditioning its participation in group bargaining on any special terms of its own design. Presumably, an employer could refuse to participate in multiemployer bargaining unless the union accepted the employer’s right to withdraw from the bargaining unit should an impasse develop. The union or the other members of the bargaining unit of course may reject such a condition; in such a case, however, the employer simply would be forced to choose between agreeing to be bound by the terms of group negotiation without a right of withdrawal at impasse, or forgoing the advantages of multiemployer bargaining and bargaining on its own.