stating that a strike by employees as a result of the company’s unilateral changes in terms of employment, without an impasse in negoti *294 ations, constituted an unfair labor practice strike
How later courts described this case
- stating that a strike by employees as a result of the company’s unilateral changes in terms of employment, without an impasse in negoti *294 ations, constituted an unfair labor practice strike
- concluding that since “the Board is not required to observe automatically all the rules of evidence governing the trial of cases in court,” it was entitled to create a new evidentiary rule
- affirming NLRB’s finding of section 8(a)(5) violation because bargaining had not reached impasse at time employer announced intent to replace terms of expired contract with “new schedule” of wages and benefits
- affirming NLRB’s finding of § 8(a)(5) violation because bargaining had not reached impasse at time employer announced intent to replace terms of expired contract with “new schedule” of wages and benefits
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
VAN GRAAFEILAND, Circuit Judge,
dissenting:
We have here a situation in which admittedly the employer withdrew from the National Automatic Sprinkler and Fire.Control Association’s contract because financially it was too onerous. Despite this fact, when the parties commenced negotiations, the Union advanced a proposal containing provisions more favorable to the Union than were in the National agreement. When this proved completely unacceptable to the employer, the Union representative inquired whether the employer would become a signatory to the National agreement. When company representatives responded that they could not live with either agreement, the Union representative stated that they were at an impasse. This statement was repeated thereafter in several telephone conversations.
*70 In the light of the foregoing facts, the Board’s holding that the employer was guilty of an unfair labor practice for relying upon the Union representative’s statements that “we are at an impasse” and “[y]ou and I cannot agree” was manifestly unfair and without substantial evidentiary support. I would therefore deny enforcement of the Board’s order.
I am also unable to agree with my colleagues’ holding on the admissibility of the tape recording. Where, as here, the testimony of a Union representative on a vital matter is clearly impeached by a recording of his prior statements, I cannot accept the argument that the recording’s admission into evidence would harm the collective bargaining process. The integrity of the Board’s fact-finding process is as important a factor in this country’s labor-management relations as are the cross-the-table negotiations that precede Board review. 1 If the Board’s search for the truth is not to degenerate into a game, see NLRB v. Selwyn Shoe Manufacturing Corp., 428 F.2d 217, 225 (8th Cir. 1970), if the parties are “to conduct such cross-examination as may be required for a full and true disclosure of the facts”, 5 U.S.C. § 556 (d), evidence that replaces untruth with truth should not be excluded.
Were I to agree with the majority that enforcement of the Board’s order should be granted, I would concur in the modifications of the sanctions imposed. They ameliorate, at least in part, the inequity resulting from the Board’s determination.
. “It is sometimes forgotten that the National Labor Relations Act deals with people’s livelihoods and that the stakes in an unfair labor practice hearing are consequently extremely high.”
International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW) v. NLRB, 148 U.S.App.D.C. 305, 318 , 459 F.2d 1329, 1342 (1972).