Operations In Fiscal Year 1988 - National Labor Relations Board

Enforcement Litigation 145The court recognized that "[t]his circuit is not authorized tointerpret the labor laws with binding effect throughout thewhole country, and the Board therefore is not obliged to acceptour interpretation." 854 F.2d at 1066-1067. In addition, the courtrecognized that the case at bar arose in the Sixth Circuit, ratherthan the Seventh, and that the company had elected to file itspetition for review in the Seventh Circuit, which also had venuebecause the company did business there. Nonetheless, the courtfaulted the Board for not facing up to the conflict the court perceivedin the decisions of the Board and the circuits. Thus, thecourt stated that "the Board had the duty to take a stance, toexplain which decisions it agreed with and why, and to explorethe possibility of intermediate solutions," noting that the facts ofthis case may "place it halfway between Truitt and Hormone."Id. at 1067. Amplifying on that last point, the court stated: "Thecompany's ambiguous statements could be interpreted as a veiledthreat of layoffs in the near if not the immediate future, thusupping the ante compared to Harystone and perhaps bringing thecase within the gravitational field of Truitt." Ibid. Moreover, thecourt added, "We do not follow stare decisis inflexibly; if theBoard gives us a good reason to do so, we shall be happy to reexamineHarystone." 3° Accordingly, the court remanded the caseto the Board for further proceedings consistent with its opinion.2. SuccessorshipThe presumption of continuing majority status enjoyed by acertified union is, absent unusual circumstances, irrebuttableduring the certification year or the term of a collective-bargainingagreement. 3 ' In a case decided this year, 32 the Fourth Circuitupheld the Board's determination that the mere change inthe stock ownership of a corporation did not constitute such anunusual circumstance or relieve the corporation of a duty to bargain.In this case, about 1 year into a 3-year contract, the employer,a corporation, was acquired by another corporation through thepurchase of its stock. The employing entity maintained its nameand legal identity, and the operations of its unionized facility remainedunchanged. The method of acquisition was chosen becauseof the tax advantages the purchaser would obtain from theemployer's losses. Soon after the change in ownership, the employermade significant unilateral changes and ultimately withdrewrecognition from the union.The Board reasoned that, if a change in stock ownership wereaccorded significance, everyday stock transactions would havethe potential for disruption of labor relations and industrial3° 854 F.2d at 1066-1067.31 See, for example, NLRB v. Iron Workers Local 103 (Higdon Contracting), 434 U.S. 335, 343 fn. 8(1978).32 EPE Inc. v. NLRB, 845 F.2d 483 (4th Cir.).