employer eliminated job-related privileges in represented units but allowed unrepresented workers to retain privileges; Board properly may order restoration of privileges and bar employer's nego- tiator from insisting to impasse on their elimination
How later courts described this case
- employer eliminated job-related privileges in represented units but allowed unrepresented workers to retain privileges; Board properly may order restoration of privileges and bar employer's nego- tiator from insisting to impasse on their elimination
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
FIELD, Circuit Judge
(dissenting):
On the former appeal involving this controversy we sustained the finding of the Board that the company had been guilty of an unfair labor practice in discharging a control mechanic “without first negotiating concerning the roll back rights of the other employees in the bargaining unit * * 1 In the course of that opinion we stated
“It should be noted that the Administrative Law Judge and the Board have alternately taken and retreated from the position that the control mechanics’ roll back rights were not a bargainable issue and could not be discontinued, under any circumstances, by the company.
We disagree with this position. The roll back rights were a type of seniority and, as such, were a proper and usual subject of collective bargaining.” 2
To me the order of the Board presently before us directing the company to refrain from “adamantly insisting upon the inclusion in any collective bargaining agreement of a seniority clause” with respect to the roll back rights flies in the teeth of our former opinion and is utterly irreconcilable with it. Additionally, the Board’s decision is at variance with the principle enunciated in Porter Co. v. N. L. R. B., 397 U.S. 99 , 90 S.Ct. 821 , 25 L.Ed.2d 146 (1970), since in effect it compels the company to agree upon a bargainable issue upon which the parties themselves were unable to reach an accord. Finally, the decision of the Board is contrary to the explicit direction of Congress as reflected in Section 8(d) of the Act, 3 that the mutual obligation of the employer and the union to bargain collectively “does not compel either party to agree to a proposal or require the making of a concession.” For these reasons, I would deny enforcement of the order.
. E. I. DuPont de Nemours and Company v. N. L. R. B., 480 F.2d 1245, 1249 (4 Cir. 1973).
. Id. at 1249 .
. 29 U.S.C. § 158 (d).