1 - National Labor Relations Board
1 - National Labor Relations Board
1 - National Labor Relations Board
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
94 Thirty-fourth Annual Report of the <strong>National</strong> <strong>Labor</strong> <strong>Relations</strong> <strong>Board</strong><br />
union authorized a strike, and only after, not before, a bargaining<br />
impasse was reached.62<br />
8. Successor Employer and Plant Relocation<br />
Bargaining Obligation<br />
Three cases among those decided during the year involved<br />
the effect of a transfer of an employing company's stock or<br />
assets, or a relocation of its plant, upon its obligation to bargain<br />
with the union representing its employees. In Miller Trucking<br />
Service, 63 the sole stockholder of a corporation sold all his stock<br />
to another company which established the corporation as a separate<br />
organizational division, rehired most of the original company's<br />
former employees, and operated in substantially the same<br />
manner as before the stock transfer, using the same equipment,<br />
servicing the same customers, and employing the same number<br />
of employees at the same work and under the same general<br />
terms and conditions of employment. Pointing out that, while<br />
a corporate identity will sometimes be pierced in order to avoid<br />
its use to shield one who seeks to evade legal responsibility, it<br />
will not be pierced to sanction the corporation's wrongdoing,<br />
the <strong>Board</strong> held that the transfer of stock did not result in the<br />
substitution of the purchaser for the former stockholder as employer.<br />
It found that the original corporation, which was never<br />
dissolved and continued as a legal entity, remained the employer<br />
at all times and was obligated to remedy the former stockholder's<br />
refusal to bargain with the union prior to the ,transfer of stock,<br />
which the <strong>Board</strong> found violative of section (8) (a) (5) and (1) of<br />
the Act. In addition, the <strong>Board</strong> found that the employer's unilateral<br />
termination of its employees just before the transfer of<br />
stock violated section (8) (a) (5) and (1) of the Act. Had the<br />
employer honored the union's request for recognition, it might<br />
profitably have bargained with the union about such questions<br />
as whether mass terminations were necessary at all, and, if so,<br />
when the terminations should occur ; notice to employees of the<br />
impending termination ; and rights of employees with respect to<br />
rehiring. Such bargaining might well have affected the very terms<br />
62 Chairman McCulloch and Members Jenkins and Zagoria for the majority. Members<br />
Fanning and Brown, dissenting, were of the view that the parties had merely provided for<br />
the continuation of existing contract terms on a day-to-day basis, and that the statutory<br />
policy of maintaining industrial peace and stability during the term set by the contract did<br />
not require a holding that the no-strike clause remain in effect under these circumstances.<br />
Since the strike was supported by a majority of the bargaining unit, and had no objectives<br />
inconsistent with the union's contract demands, it was protected activity, notwithstanding<br />
the disapproval of the union leadership.<br />
" 176 NLRB No. 76.