button Special
Feature!

human resources, labor relations
Ninth Circuit
NLRB Ruling

human resources, labor relations
"Perfectly Clear"
Court Ruling
human resources, labor relations
Summary
Of The Court Ruling
human resources, labor relations
Full Text
Of The Court Ruling
human resources, labor relations

colorpix

Braun Consulting Group Logo

button Summary of The Court Ruling

NLRB v. Advanced Stretchforming Int'l
(9th Cir 04/04/2000)

Capsule: Under the United States Supreme Court's decision in NLRB v. Burns Int'l Sec Svcs, 406 US 272 (1972), a new employer which has acquired a business is generally free to set the initial terms and conditions of employment. Such an employer is not bound by its predecessor's collective bargaining agreement. The new employer must, however, recognize and bargain with the union representing its predecessor's employees if the new employer is a "successor" employer.

A new employer is a "successor" employer if it conducts essentially the same business as the former employer and either
1) former employees of the predecessor form a majority of its workforce, or
2) former employees of the predecessor would have formed a majority of its workforce, absent a refusal to hire because of anti-union animus. Despite this duty to recognize and bargain with the union, a successor employer may still set the initial hiring terms under Burns.

One qualification to the general rule in Burns is the "perfectly clear" exception.

The court stated that "[t]he Burns perfectly clear exception to the right of the employer to set the initial terms of employment applies whenever it is apparent that the incumbent union continues to represent a majority of the initial workforce." The court has previously held that "when it is perfectly clear that the employer intends to hire a majority of his workforce in a unit represented by a union from the ranks of his predecessor, his duty to bargain with the union commences immediately."

Applying this standard, the court held that the exception was applicable and that the new employer had committed an unfair labor practice by imposing terms without first consulting with the union.

The DISSENT argued that 1) the majority impermissibly relied upon its own argument (rather than the rationale given by the Board) in upholding the Board's decision, and 2) the majority's holding "practically eviscerates" the rule of Burns.

Full Text of The Court Ruling Next Page

The Contents of this Web Site are intended for general information
and should not be construed as legal advise or opinion.
Click Here to view our Web Site Disclaimer Page.


button * SPECIAL FEATURE CONTENTS
* BRAUN HOME  * NEWSLETTER ARCHIVES
Braun Consulting Group
* Insurance * Labor * Personnel

1326 5th Ave, Suite 339 / Seattle, WA 98101
Contact Braun-BCG

Site by - AJ Consulting   © 2000 Braun Consulting Group