Dallas General Drivers, W. & H., Local No. 745 v. NLRB
| Decision Date | 06 January 1966 |
| Docket Number | No. 19265.,19265. |
| Citation | 355 F.2d 842 |
| Parties | DALLAS GENERAL DRIVERS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS, LOCAL UNION NO. 745, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS OF AMERICA, Petitioner, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent, Empire Terminal Warehouse Co., Intervenor. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit |
Mr. David R. Richards, Dallas, Tex., of the bar of the Supreme Court of Texas, pro hac vice, by special leave of court, with whom Messrs. L. N. D. Wells, Jr., Dallas, Tex., and Herbert S. Thatcher, Washington, D. C., were on the brief, for petitioner. Mr. David S. Barr, Washington, D. C., also entered an appearance for petitioner.
Mr. Hans J. Lehmann, Atty., N. L. R. B., with whom Messrs. Arnold Ordman, Gen. Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Associate Gen. Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, and Allison W. Brown, Jr., Atty., N. L. R. B., were on the brief, for respondent.
Mr. Allen P. Schoolfield, Jr., Dallas, Tex., of the bar of the Supreme Court of Texas, pro hac vice, by special leave of court, with whom Mr. J. Parker Connor, Washington, D. C., was on the brief, for intervenor.
Before WILBUR K. MILLER, Senior Circuit Judge, and BURGER and TAMM, Circuit Judges.
The issue under review is whether the National Labor Relations Board could properly find that an employer and a union had bargained to an impasse, thus warranting the employer in reducing wages unilaterally after termination of their existing contract.
Petitioner, a local union affiliated with the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, seeks review of an order of the Board dismissing a complaint arising from charges filed by Petitioner against Empire Terminal Warehouse Company, intervenor in this action. The issue under review grows out of an alleged violation by the Company of Section 8(a) (5) of the National Labor Relations Act, 61 Stat. 141 (1947), 29 U.S.C. § 158 (1964), making it an unfair labor practice for an employer to refuse to bargain collectively with the representatives of his employees.
The Union charged that the employer had breached his bargaining duty by instituting a ware reduction while negotiations were pending and when no impasse had developed. The Trial Examiner dismissed the complaint on the grounds that impasse in negotiations was not necessary for such a unilateral action, also finding that there was no impasse at the time the action was taken. The Board upheld the dismissal, but concluded that the record showed an impasse had been reached. It did not, therefore, reach the question of whether a wage cut by the employer is permissible absent an impasse.
The only question before us is whether there was sufficient basis in the record for the Board's finding that an impasse had been reached. There is little dispute as to the actual history of the negotiations; the parties differ only on the Board's conclusion as to whether the status of bargaining constituted an impasse.
Prior to the negotiations under review the Union and the employer had had amicable collective bargaining relations beginning in 1956. With their contract due to expire on August 16, 1962, they began negotiations on July 13. The Union presented a complete proposed contract including significant changes in contract terms and a 25 cents hourly wage increase. At the second meeting, July 24, the Company presented a detailed counterproposal on all issues except wages, and pointed out that it was already paying 35 to 50 cents more per hour than its competitors, and could hire men in the area for less than the existing Union rate. The Union asserted it would not sign any contract without a wage increase. At a later meeting the Company asked the Union for a new wage proposal and the Union replied that it thought the next move was up to the Company. On August 6 the Union indicated it would asked its membership if they would forego the 25¢ increase. At this point a representative...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
West Hartford Ed. Ass'n v. Dayson DeCourcy
...American Federation of Television & Radio Artists v. N.L.R.B., 129 U.S.App.D.C. 399, 395 F.2d 622; Dallas General Drivers, Local No. 745 v. N.L.R.B., 122 U.S.App.D.C. 417, 355 F.2d 842; N.L.R.B. v. Intercoastal Terminal, Inc., 286 F.2d 954 (5th Cir.). 'It cannot be doubted that a deadlock o......
-
N.L.R.B. v. McClatchy Newspapers, Inc. Publisher of The Sacramento Bee
...suited to the expert experience of a board which deals constantly with the such problems.' ") (quoting Dallas Gen. Drivers Local Union No. 745 v. NLRB, 355 F.2d 842, 844-45 (D.C.Cir.1966)); Peter G. Earle, Note, The Impasse Doctrine, 64 CHI.-KENT L.REV. 407 (1988) (reviewing factors conside......
-
Facet Enterprises, Inc. v. N.L.R.B.
...exceed the prevailing rate does not constitute a claim of inability to meet wage demands. Id.; Dallas Gen. Drivers, Warehousemen & Helpers Local 745 v. NLRB, 355 F.2d 842, 845 (D.C.Cir.1966); see, e.g., Washington Materials v. NLRB, 803 F.2d 1333, 1338-39 (4th Cir.1986) (employer's claim th......
-
SIGN AND PICTORIAL U. LOCAL 1175, B. OF P., D. & P. v. NLRB
...fairly maintained; "firmness of a bargaining position does not constitute bad faith." Dallas General Drivers, etc., Local 745 v. N.L.R.B., 122 U.S.App.D.C. 417, 419, 355 F.2d 842, 844 (1966). In each instance the degree of cooperation which a party must show is "largely a matter for the Boa......