# E. I. Dupont De Nemours and Company v. National Labor Relations Board

> Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · July 26, 1974 · 501 F.2d 135

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9460884

## Case

- **Full name:** E. I. duPONT De NEMOURS AND COMPANY, Petitioner, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
- **Decided:** July 26, 1974
- **Citations:** 501 F.2d 135; 86 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 3057; 1974 U.S. App. LEXIS 7451
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Field
- **Judges:** Craven, Russell, Field
- **Cited by:** 2 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9460884

## Opinion text

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).

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9460884. Public record. Not legal advice.