Extract
A.M.F. Bowling Co., 969 (1994)
A.M.F. Bowling Company, Inc. and United Steel-workers of America, AFL-CIO, CLC, District
4. Cases 3-CA-13625 and 3-CA-13982August 31, 1994SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND ORDERBY MEMBERS STEPHENS, DEVANEY, AND COHENThis case is on remand from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. The court asked the Board to determine whether the Respondent's overall behavior during collective-bargaining negotiations constituted bad-faith bargaining, and whether the Respond-ent's declaration of impasse was premature.1The National Labor Relations Board has delegated its authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.The complaint alleged, inter alia, that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act by bargaining in bad faith and by the following postdeclaration-of-impasse conduct: withdrawing recognition from the Union, making unilateral changes, dealing directly with unit employees by encouraging and forming employee grievance committees, refusing to provide, and delaying in providing, requested pension information, refusing to bargain with the Union unless the Union dramatically altered its position, and summarily rejecting the Union's offer, at the final bargaining session, to accept economic reductions.The judge found that the Respondent's overall conduct during negotiations, including its failure to produce wage surveys it conducted to justify its demands for economic concessions, constituted bad-faith bargaining. The judge further found that even if the Respondent had bargained in good faith, the Respond- ent's declaration of impasse was premature because collective bargaining was not sufficiently exhausted.The Board in its original decision did not pass on the judge's finding that the Respondent engaged in general bad-faith bargaining during contract negotiations with the Union. Rather, the Board concluded that the Respondent's failure to provide the Union with its wage surveys violated Section 8(a)(5) and prevented a valid bargaining impasse from occurring. Relying on the absence of a valid impasse, the Board found that the Respondent further violated Section 8(a)(5) by engaging in the additional postimpasse conduct described above.On review, the court reversed the Board's finding that the Respondent's failure to produce the wage surveys constituted an unfair labor practice, holding that the Union's request for the Respondent to open its books and to justify its position was a ''general request'' that did not put the Respondent on notice that the Union sought the wage charts. The court remanded the case, however, for the Board to review ''the ALJ's determination that the impasse resulted from general bad-faith bargaining and that it was prematurely declared.'' 977 F.2d at 147.2The Board has accepted the court's remand and analyzes the relevant issues below. For the reasons set forth below, we reverse the judge's finding that the Respondent engaged in bad-faith bargaining, but we find, in agreement with the judge, that there was no valid impasse when the Respondent implemented the economic terms of its January 14, 1987 offer. Accordingly, we reaffirm our finding that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) by its various unilateral actions taken subsequent to the alleged impasse.The relevant facts, based on both the credited testimony and the uncontroverted evidence in the record, are as follows.3 The Respondent manufactures and1 On May 29, 1991, the National Labor Relations Board issued its Decision and Order in this proceeding in which it found that the Respondent, inter alia, bargained in bad faith by failing to provide the Union with wage surveys it conducted to justify the necessity for the substantial economic...See the full content of this document
Sponsored links
