Board precluded from determining that employer’s repudiation of agreement and refusal to negotiate constituted an unfair labor practice where a federal court had earlier rescinded the collective bargaining agreement
How later courts described this case
- Board precluded from determining that employer’s repudiation of agreement and refusal to negotiate constituted an unfair labor practice where a federal court had earlier rescinded the collective bargaining agreement
- "The Board was faced with ... essentially the same contract issue...."
- prior district court judgment precludes relitigation of resolved issues before the NLRB
- preemption issue not discussed
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
*802 ANTHONY M. KENNEDY
(concurring).
The union did not appeal the district court’s judgment under section 301 ordering rescission of the collective bargaining agreement. The validity of a collective bargaining agreement is a question which both the district court and the Labor Board may have concurrent jurisdiction to decide. Here the Board refused to give any weight at all to the district court’s decision, claiming that its own determinations always take precedence over inconsistent district court decisions. I believe that facts necessarily decided in either forum should be given at least some collateral estoppel effect in subsequent proceedings in the other forum. Thus I concur in our denial of enforcement of the Board’s order.