N.L.R.B. v. International Harvester Co.
| Decision Date | 02 May 1980 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 77-1349,79-7117,s. 77-1349 |
| Citation | 618 F.2d 85 |
| Parties | 104 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 3098, 88 Lab.Cas. P 12,042 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner, v. INTERNATIONAL HARVESTER COMPANY, Respondent. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Linda Dreeben, Atty., N. L. R. B., Washington, D. C., argued for petitioner; Elliott Moore, N. L. R. B., John H. Ferguson, Washington, D. C., on brief.
Charles E. Jones, Phoenix, Ariz., for respondent.
Petition to Review a Decision of the National Labor Relations Board.
Before KENNEDY, SKOPIL, and ALARCON, Circuit Judges.
The National Labor Relations Board petitions for enforcement of its order directing International Harvester Company to bargain about a decision to alter its marketing structure. The issue is whether International Harvester's decision was a mandatory subject of bargaining. We conclude that the decision was within the prerogative of management. We enforce, however, that part of the order directing the Company to bargain about the effects of the decision on the terms and conditions of employment of employees in a certified bargaining unit at the time of the decision.
For many years International Harvester Company sold all of its trucks through approximately 150 branch offices. The institution of government price controls in 1973 caused the Company to evaluate its traditional marketing emphasis on volume manufacturing and sales. The Company in 1975 was losing approximately $10,000,000 a month. It suspected that sales of large numbers of trucks in a single order, also called "fleet sales," contributed greatly to the losses. The Company found, moreover, that under its system of accountability, there was no way to trace or allocate losses at branch levels among fleet sales, used-truck sales, and retail sales. This tracing was necessary, the Company concluded, to determine which type of sales generated the maximum profit for it. In November, 1975, the Company responded to its conclusions by restructuring its nationwide marketing operation to account more precisely for different types of sales and to increase profits.
There is no contention that this decision was made for any purpose forbidden by the National Labor Relations Act or that it was contrary to the policies of the Act. The only question here is whether the Company had a duty to bargain with a union concerning the reorganization decision.
Responsibility for fleet sales was transferred away from branch offices and assigned to separate administrative structures established within the Company. Sales of used trucks were also transferred to locations away from branch offices. To better control profits at individual branches, the Company began to focus on the return realized on dollars invested in the branch, rather than on volume of sales. Branch managers, having lost control over fleet sales, were given greater opportunity to participate in inventory decisions with respect to standard retail sales. Within four months of these changes, the Company closed four branch offices, converted one branch office to a dealership, and established 28 centers around the country for the sale of used trucks. These management decisions were proved sound, for profits increased. In subsequent months, the Company closed and sold other branch offices.
As a result of the changes instituted by the Company, retail sales representatives in the Phoenix, Arizona branch office lost the opportunity to earn commissions on fleet accounts that were transferred to a new marketing hierarchy and also lost control over fleet orders. The Company transferred the branch office's fleet account executive into the new fleet sales marketing structure, assigning him to a supervisor within that new hierarchy. For a short time after the transfer, the executive continued to work at the branch office. At collective bargaining sessions the Company stated that because of the changes, the fleet account executive position was no longer a part of the bargaining unit.
Sales Drivers & Help, Local 274, affiliated with International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America (the Union), represented a bargaining unit in the Phoenix branch office consisting of five Company retail sales representative positions and the transferred fleet account executive position. The Union filed a complaint alleging that the Company breached its duty, under 29 U.S.C. § 158(a)(5) and (1), to bargain in good faith by taking the fleet account work...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
First National Maintenance Corporation v. National Labor Relations Board
...labor costs may not be a crucial circumstance in a particular economically based partial termination. See e. g., NLRB v. International Harvester Co., 618 F.2d 85 (CA9 1980) (change in marketing structure); NLRB v. Thompson Transport Co., 406 F.2d 698 (CA10 1969) (loss of major customer). An......
-
Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers v. Burlington Northern R. Co.
...a question of law which we review de novo. See Japan Air Lines Co. v. IAM, 538 F.2d 46, 52-53 (2d Cir.1976); cf. NLRB v. Int'l Harvester Co., 618 F.2d 85, 87 (9th Cir.1980). Whether past conduct constitutes custom and practice sufficient to be incorporated as an implied term in a collective......
-
Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers v. Burlington Northern R. Co., 85-4138
...question of law which we review de novo. See Japan Air Lines Co. v. IAM, 538 F.2d 46, 52-53 (2d Cir.1976); cf. NLRB v. International Harvester Co., 618 F.2d 85, 87 (9th Cir.1980). Whether past conduct constitutes custom and practice sufficient to be incorporated as an implied term in a coll......
-
Nish Noroian Farms v. Agricultural Labor Relations Bd.
...about the effects of such decisions on the wages, hours, and working conditions of his employees. (E.g., N.L.R.B. v. International Harvester Co. (9th Cir.1980) 618 F.2d 85, 88; N.L.R.B. v. Transmarine Navigation Corporation (9th Cir.1967) 380 F.2d 933, 939; N.L.R.B. v. Rapid Bindery, Inc. (......
-
Big league Perestroika? The implications of Fraser v. Major League Soccer.
...Prods. Corp. v. NLRB, 379 U.S. 203, 210 (1964) (quoting the National Labor Relations Act). (153) See NLRB v. International Harvester Co., 618 F. 2d 85, 87 (9th Cir. 1980) ("Management decisions that fundamentally alter the direction of an enterprise ... generally are not considered decision......