Teamsters Local Union No. 175, Intern. Broth. of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen, and Helpers of America v. N.L.R.B.

• Decision Date: 15 April 1986
• Docket Number: No. 84-1584,84-1584
• Parties: 121 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 3433, 252 U.S.App.D.C. 125, 54 USLW 2541, 104 Lab.Cas. P 11,826 TEAMSTERS LOCAL UNION NO. 175, affiliated with the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Petitioner, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent, Bell Transit Company, Intervenor.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit

Page 27

788 F.2d 27

121 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 3433, 252 U.S.App.D.C.

125, 54 USLW 2541,

104 Lab.Cas. P 11,826

TEAMSTERS LOCAL UNION NO. 175, affiliated with the International Brotherhood of Teamsters Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Petitioner, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent Bell Transit Company, Intervenor.

No. 84-1584.

United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit.

Argued Nov. 15, 1985.

Decided April 15, 1986.

Petition for Review of an Order of the National Labor Relations board.

Wilma B. Liebman, with whom Robert M. Baptiste, Washington, D.C., was on brief, for petitioner.

Daniel R. Pollitt, Atty., N.L.R.B., of the Bar of the Supreme Court of North Carolina, pro hac vice by special leave of the Court, with whom Robert E. Allen, Associate General Counsel and Elliott Moore, Deputy Associate General Counsel, Washington, D.C., were on brief, for respondent.

David M. O'Boyle, Pittsburgh, Pa., for intervenor, Bell Transit Co.

Before WRIGHT and EDWARDS, Circuit Judges and DAVIS, ^* Circuit Judge, United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge HARRY T. EDWARDS.

HARRY T. EDWARDS, Circuit Judge:

The instant case involves an unfair labor practice charge filed by Teamsters Local Union No. 175 ("Local 175" or the "Union") with the National Labor Relations Board ("NLRB" or the "Board"), alleging that Bell Transit Company ("Bell Transit" or the "Company") violated section 8(a)(5) of the National Labor Relations Act ("NLRA" or the "Act") when Company officials unilaterally reduced the wage rate of bargaining unit employees prior to reaching a new agreement or a bargaining impasse with the Union. An Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") found that representatives of Bell Transit thought an agreement with the Union was imminent at the time when wages were reduced. Therefore, the ALJ concluded that bargaining had not reached an impasse and that Bell Transit's wage reduction had been an unfair labor practice in violation of the Act. Although it did not overturn any of the ALJ's findings of fact, the Board reached an extraordinary and concededly unprecedented conclusion that the negotiating parties were at an impasse while they simultaneously had reached a tentative contract agreement. Accordingly, the Board dismissed the Union's complaint.

We find the Board's decision to be completely unsupportable. It is undisputed that the employer's negotiator believed that he had reached a tentative agreement with the Union. Furthermore, the findings do not support a conclusion that the Union thought bargaining was deadlocked. Moreover, neither bargaining party took any action indicating that further bargaining would have been fruitless. Thus, on this record, there was no legal justification for the employer's unilateral action in reducing wages. The Board's conclusion that an impasse and tentative agreement can exist simultaneously is both inconsistent with prevailing law and, additionally, incomprehensible. We therefore reverse and remand to the Board.

I. BACKGROUND

Bell Transit hires and supervises truck drivers for its sole customer, Union Carbide. From 1956 to 1982 the Company employed members of Local 175 for work at Union Carbide's Institute, West Virginia plant under National Master Freight Agreements negotiated between a multi-employer association and affiliated local unions. When Bell came under pressure from Union Carbide to lower labor costs, it withdrew from the association. Local 175 was then authorized by the Teamsters to negotiate a separate agreement with Bell, subject to the approval of the Eastern Conference Rider and Contract Review Committee ("Eastern Conference").

Bell and the Union first met to negotiate on March 5, 1982, but Bell did not offer a contract proposal at that meeting. With the National Motor Freight Agreement about to expire on March 31, 1982, Bell Transit sent a letter to Local 175 on March 26, agreeing to continue to pay the wage rate of $12.68 per hour that had been in effect under the expiring agreement. In exchange, it expected the drivers to continue working during negotiations on a new contract. Bell also agreed to increase its fringe benefit contributions on April 1 as scheduled under the national agreement, but did not offer to implement scheduled cost-of-living increases that would raise wages to $13.15 per hour. The Company stated that it would pay the wage rates agreed on in the upcoming negotiations retroactively to April 1.

The negotiating parties met again April 5, 6 and 7. On April 7, the Company made its first wage offer at $9.71 per hour with an annual reopener. The Union requested the $13.15 per hour it would have received under the national agreement. On May 4, the parties returned to the bargaining table and Bell Transit made a so-called "final offer" of two alternative wage proposals: $10.50 per hour with an annual reopener or $11.00 per hour without a reopener. The Union maintained its original demand. At the next negotiating session on May 7, Bell again raised its offer. It proposed a wage rate of $11.25 per hour with a reopener in the third year.

After bargaining with Bell on May 7, the Union held a meeting of the drivers and took a straw pool to assess sentiment on the Company's latest proposal. The vote was split evenly. On May 11, one of the Union negotiators telephoned Max Rein, Bell's president and negotiator, and told him of the split vote. The Union agent informed Rein that the vote meant the drivers had not rejected the proposal and reminded him that the contract would have to be approved by the Eastern Conference. When asked at the hearing what his response had been to this news, Mr. Rein testified, "Well, I felt as long as the men didn't reject it, we had a good chance." Joint Appendix ("J.A.") 301.

On May 14, Rein notified the Union that Bell would implement its May 7 contract proposal, reducing wages to $11.25 per hour. On May 16, without agreement from the Union, the company unilaterally reduced the wage rate to $11.25 per hour. Local 175's negotiators submitted Bell's wage proposal to the Eastern Conference on June 11 with a recommendation that they reject it. The parties continued to negotiate a variety of other issues on May 17 and July 9. On July 25, the Union and Company representatives met with the employees and Bell offered to make several changes in work rules if the Union would sign the proposal Bell had implemented.

By letter of August 10, the Eastern Conference rejected Bell's contract proposal. The parties continued to negotiate on August 20 and agreed to seek help from a mediator. On September 9, they met with a mediator and Bell raised its offer to $11.75 per hour. The employees rejected this proposal and voted to strike.

On November 8, 1982, Local 175 filed charges with the Board alleging that Bell Transit had committed an unfair labor practice by unilaterally lowering the wage rate on May 16. The NLRB General Counsel investigated the charge and filed a complaint against Bell. An ALJ held a two-day hearing and issued an opinion concluding that Bell had violated the NLRA as charged. He determined that the Union had not agreed to, nor acquiesced in, the wage increase. ¹ He also found no bargaining impasse that would justify Bell's unilateral action. Specifically, the ALJ concluded that "[n]othing about the prior negotiations suggested they were exhaustive" and that Rein had believed there was "a good chance" the Eastern Conference would accept the Company's offer. ² Thus, he stated that although subsequent events revealed that the Union's position on wages was firmer than Rein had thought, there had been no impasse on May 16 when the Company unilaterally reduced wages.

The Board, over a dissent, ³ disagreed with the ALJ and dismissed the Union's complaint. In its view, the parties had bargained in good faith to an impasse and therefore, Bell Transit's unilateral wage reduction was permissible. The Board did not disagree with the ALJ's finding that Rein believed he had reached an agreement subject to Eastern Conference approval. Instead, it concluded that the impasse in negotiations had existed concurrently with a tentative agreement between Bell Transit and the Union.

II. DISCUSSION

Under section 8(a)(5) of the NLRA, it is an unfair labor practice for an employer "to refuse to bargain collectively with the representatives of his employees ...." 29 U.S.C. Sec. 158(a)(5) (1982). It is well settled that an employer is required to maintain the status quo established by an expired collective bargaining agreement until the parties reach a new agreement or bargain to an impasse. An employer violates the duty to bargain if, prior to either a final agreement or an impasse, it institutes a unilateral change in wages, hours or working conditions over which bargaining is required. ⁴

Impasse is defined as the deadlock reached by bargaining parties "after good-faith negotiations have exhausted the prospects of concluding an agreement." ⁵ This court has described the situation as one in which "there was no realistic prospect that continuation of discussion at that time would have been fruitful." ⁶ The Board's determination of impasse involves judgments on factual issues ⁷ that are peculiarly within the Board's expertise and a reviewing court may not disturb the Board's evaluation unless the finding is irrational or unsupported by substantial evidence. ⁸ In this case the Board's decision is entitled to no deference because it is based on an irrational premise without even the slightest support in the evidence.

There is no evidence to suggest that either the Union or Rein, Bell's president and negotiator, viewed the negotiations as deadlocked. The ALJ found, and the Board accepted, that Rein thought he had a tentative understanding with the Union, subject only to ratification by the Eastern Conference. This finding is supported by Rein's own testimony....