National Labor Relations Board v. Acme Industrial Co, 52

Decision Date09 January 1967
Docket NumberNo. 52,52
Citation17 L.Ed.2d 495,385 U.S. 432,87 S.Ct. 565
PartiesNATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner, v. ACME INDUSTRIAL CO
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

Norton J. Come, Washington, D.C., for petitioner.

E. Allan Kovar, Chicago, Ill., for respondent.

Mr. Justice STEWART delivered the opinion of the Court.

In NLRB v. C & C Plywood Corp., 385 U.S. 421, 87 S.Ct. 559, 17 L.Ed.2d 486, decided today, we dealt with one aspect of an employer's duty to bargain during the term of a collective bargaining agreement. In this case we deal with another—involving the obligation to furnish information that allows a union to decide whether to process a grievance.

In April 1963, at the conclusion of a strike, the respondent entered into a collective bargaining agreement with the union which was the certified representative of its employees. The agreement contained two sections relevant to this case. Article I, § 3, provided, 'It is the Company's general policy not to subcontract work which is normally performed by employees in the bargaining unit where this will cause the layoff of employees or prevent the recall of employees who would normally perform this work * * *.' In Art. VI, § 10, the respondent agreed that '(i)n the event the equipment of the plant * * * is hereafter moved to another location of the Company, employees working in the plant * * * who are subject to reduction in classification or layoff as a result thereof may transfer to the new location with full rights and seniority, unless there is then in existence at the new location a collective bargaining agreement covering * * * employees at such location.' A grievance procedure culminating in compulsory and binding arbitration was also incorporated into the collective agreement.

The present controversy began in January 1964, when the union discovered that certain machinery was being removed from the respondent's plan. When asked by union representatives about this movement, the respondent's foremen replied that there had been no violation of the collective agreement and that the company, therefore, was not obliged to answer any questions regarding the machinery. After this rebuff, the union filed 11 grievances charging the respondent with violations of the above quoted clauses of the collective agreement. The president of the union then wrote a letter to the respondent, requesting 'the following information at the earliest possible date:

'1. The approximate dates when each piece of equipment was moved out of the plant.

'2. The place to which each piece of equipment was moved and whether such place is a facility which is operated or controlled by the Company.

'3. The number of machines or equipment that was moved out of the plant.

'4. What was the reason or purpose of moving the equipment out of the plant.

'5. Is this equipment used for production elsewhere.'

The company replied by letter that it had no duty to furnish this information since no layoffs or reductions in job classification had occurred within five days (the time limitation set by the contract for filing grievances) prior to the union's formal request for information.

This refusal prompted the union to file unfair labor practice charges with the National Labor Relations Board. A complaint was issued, and the Board, overruling its trial examiner, held the respondent had violated § 8(a)(5) of the Act1 by refusing to bargain in good faith. Accordingly, it issued a cease-and-desist order. The Board found that the information requested was 'necessary in order to enable the Union to evaluate intelligently the grievances filed' and pointed out that the agreement contained no 'clause by which the Union waives its statutory right to such information.'

The Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit refused to enforce the Board's order. 351 F.2d 258. It did not question the relevance of the information nor the finding that the union had not expressly waived its right to the information. The Court ruled, however, that the existence of a provision for binding arbitration of differences concerning the meaning and application of the agreement foreclosed the Board from exercising its statutory power. The court cited United Steelworkers v. Warrior & Gulf Navig. Co., 363 U.S. 574, 80 S.Ct. 1347, 4 L.Ed.2d 1409, the United Steelworkers v. American Mfg. Co., 363 U.S. 564, 80 S.Ct. 1343, 4 L.Ed.2d 1403, as articulating a national labor policy favoring arbitration and requiring the Board's deference to an arbitrator when construction and application of a labor agreement are in issue. We granted certiorari to consider the substantial question of federal labor law thus presented. 383 U.S. 905, 86 S.Ct. 893, 15 L.Ed.2d 662.

There can be no question of the general obligation of an employer to provide information that is needed by the bargaining representative for the proper performance of its duties. National Labor Relations Board v. Truitt Mfg. Co., 351 U.S. 149, 76 S.Ct. 753, 100 L.Ed. 1027. Similarly, the duty to bargain unquestionably extends beyond the period of contract negotiations and applies to labor-management relations during the term of an agreement. National Labor Relations Board v. C & C Plywood Corp., 385 U.S. 421, 87 S.Ct. 559, 17 L.Ed.2d 486; National Labor Relations Board v. F. W. Woolworth Co., 352 U.S. 938, 77 S.Ct. 261, 1 L.Ed.2d 235. The only real issue in this case, therefore, is whether the Board must await an arbitrator's determination of the relevancy of the requested information before it can enforce the union's statutory rights under § 8(a)(5).

The two cases upon which the court below relied, and the third of the Steelworkers trilogy, United Steelworkers of America v. Enterprise Wheel & Car Corp., 363 U.S. 593, 80 S.Ct. 1358, 4 L.Ed.2d 1424, do not throw must light on the problem. For those cases dealt with the relationship of courts to arbitrators when an arbitration award is under review or when the employer's agreement to arbitrate is in question. The weighing of the arbitrator's greater institutional competency, which was so vital to those decisions, must be evaluated in that context. 363 U.S., at 567, 581—582, 596—597, 80 S.Ct. 1352, 1360—1361. The relationship of the Board to the arbitration process is of a quite different order. See Cary v. Westinghouse Corp., 375 U.S. 261, 269—272, 84 S.Ct. 401, 407—409, 11 L.Ed.2d 320. Moreover, in assessing the Board's power to deal with unfair labor practices, provisions of the Labor Act which do not apply to the power of the courts under § 301,2 must be considered. Section 8(a)(5) proscribes failure to bargain collectively in only the most general terms, but § 8(d) amplifies it by defining 'to bargain collectively' as including 'the mutual obligation of the employer and the representative of the employees to meet at reasonable times and confer in good faith with respect to * * * any question arising (under an agreement) * * *.'3 And § 10(a)4 provides: 'The Board is empowered * * * to prevent any person from...

To continue reading

Request your trial
534 cases
  • Hartford Principals' and Supervisors' Ass'n v. Shedd
    • United States
    • Connecticut Supreme Court
    • March 10, 1987
    ...of contract negotiations and applies to labor-management relations during the term of an agreement." NLRB v. Acme Industrial Co., 385 U.S. 432, 436, 87 S.Ct. 565, 568, 17 L.Ed.2d 495 (1967). The definition of the duty "to negotiate in good faith" contained in § 10-153e(d), which obligates t......
  • Amalgamated Association of Street, Electric Railway and Motor Coach Employees of America v. Lockridge
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • June 14, 1971
    ...L.Ed.2d 320 (1964); NLRB v. Strong, 393 U.S. 357, 360—361, 89 S.Ct. 541, 544—545, 21 L.Ed.2d 546 (1969); NLRB v. Acme Industrial Co., 385 U.S. 432, 87 S.Ct. 565, 17 L.Ed.2d 495 (1967). But as a policy matter the Board will not overturn arbitration awards based on behavior that is also an al......
  • Local 777, Democratic Union Organizing Committee, Seafarers Intern. Union of North America, AFL-CIO v. N.L.R.B.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit
    • June 20, 1979
    ...the employer to furnish information necessary for the union to act intelligently on its grievances, NLRB v. Acme Industrial Co., 385 U.S. 432, 87 S.Ct. 565, 17 L.Ed.2d 495 (1967); Torrington Co. v. NLRB, 545 F.2d 840 (2d Cir. 1976), we agree with the Administrative Law Judge that the Compan......
  • Detroit Edison Company v. National Labor Relations Board
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • March 5, 1979
    ...employees' bargaining representative. NLRB v. Truitt Mfg. Co., 351 U.S. 149, 76 S.Ct. 753, 100 L.Ed. 1027; NLRB v. Acme Industrial Co., 385 U.S. 432, 87 S.Ct. 565, 17 L.Ed.2d 495. In this case an employer was brought before the National Labor Relations Board to answer a complaint that it ha......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 firm's commentaries
  • Board Overrules Longstanding Protections Against Disclosure Of Witness Statements
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • July 10, 2015
    ...that a union's right to information in the context of grievance prosecution was liberally interpreted under NLRB v. Acme Industrial Co., 385 U.S. 432 (1967) to require disclosure of information relevant to the processing of grievances. The majority found no reason to treat witness statement......
3 books & journal articles
  • William B. Gould Iv, Kissing Cousins?: the Federal Arbitration Act and Modern Labor Arbitration
    • United States
    • Emory University School of Law Emory Law Journal No. 55-4, 2006
    • Invalid date
    ...of them, may require any person to attend as a witness, and to bring with him any book, record, document or other evidence."). 166 385 U.S. 432 (1967). 167 29 U.S.C. Sec. 158 (2000). 168 William B. Gould IV, The NLRB at Age 70: Some Reflections on the Clinton Board and the Bush II Aftermath......
  • Just the facts: the case for workplace transparency.
    • United States
    • Stanford Law Review Vol. 63 No. 2, January 2011
    • January 1, 2011
    ...rents over which bargaining might take place). (68.) See Detroit Edison Co. v. NLRB, 440 U.S. 301, 303 (1979); NLRB v. Acme Indus. Co., 385 U.S. 432, 435-36 (1967); NLRB v. Truitt Mfg. Co., 351 U.S. 149, 153 (1956). The duty to provide employment-related information is broad, though it may ......
  • ESSENTIAL OR DISPOSABLE? HEALTHCARE WORKERS' RIGHT TO REFUSE HAZARDOUS WORK.
    • United States
    • Fordham Urban Law Journal Vol. 48 No. 5, October 2021
    • October 1, 2021
    ...It is firmly established in case law that employers have a duty to disclose information to unions. See, e.g., NLRB v. ACME Indus. Co., 385 U.S. 432, 435-36 (1967) (holding that employers have a general obligation to provide unions with information they need to carry out their duties); NLRB ......
5 provisions
  • DC Register Vol 62, No 10, March 6, 2015 Pages 2646 to 2913
    • United States
    • District of Columbia Register
    • Invalid date
    ...response to a request by a union. PERB cites to the United States Supreme Court in National Labor Relations Board v. Acme Industrial Co., 385 U.S. 432, 436-37 National Labor Review Board v. Acme Industrial Co., 385 U.S. 32, 36 (1967)) (emphases added). 23 American Federation of Government E......
  • DC Register Vol 62, No 35, August 21, 2015 Pages 011437 to 011813
    • United States
    • District of Columbia Register
    • Invalid date
    ...No. 272, supra. 14 See NLRB v. Truitt Mfg. Co., 351 U.S. 149, 76 S. Ct. 753, 100 L.Ed. 1027; NLRB v. Acme Industrial Co., 385 U.S. 432, 87 S.Ct. 565, 17 L.Ed.2d 2012 WL 3901586. See University of the District of Columbia Faculty Association v. University of the District of Columbia, 36 DCR ......
  • DC Register Vol 63, No 27, June 24, 2016 Pages 8781 to 8998
    • United States
    • District of Columbia Register
    • Invalid date
    ...includes a requirement that an employer, furnish information needed by a union to represent its members In NLRB v. Acme Industrial Co., 385 U.S. 432 (1967), the United States Supreme Court similarly concluded that an employer's duty to disclose information unquestionably applies to labor-ma......
  • DC Register Vol 60, No 51, November 29, 2013 Pages 016269 to 016513
    • United States
    • District of Columbia Register
    • Invalid date
    ...of contract provLsions under whl.ch a grlevance may (or may not) b_e fired and, Lf fLred uray (or may not) be sustained. Cf-, ACME, 385 U.S. at 432-38. I - I - DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA VOL. 60 - NO. 51 NOVEMBER 29, 2013 Decision and Order PERB Case No. 9O-U-1O Page 5 information is unfounded. '......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT