TruServ Corp v. NLRB

254 F.3d 1105 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Aug 21, 2001

Full text

Opinions in this case

Opinion
Opinion

United States Court of Appeals for the district of columbia circuit No. 00-1356 September Term, 2000 TruServ Corporation, f/k/a Cotter & Company, Petitioner v. National Labor Relations Board, Filed On: August 17, 2001 [618389] Respondent Teamsters Local Union No. 293, Intervenor On the Joint Petition for Rehearing by TruServ Corporation and the National Labor Relations Board Before: Edwards, Rogers and Garland, Circuit Judges. O R D E R Upon consideration of the joint petition for rehearing, it is ORDERED that the joint petition for rehearing be granted. It is FURTHER ORDERED that the court's opinion filed on July 6, 2001 be amended as follows: Page 2: Strike the final sentence on this page ("Because, however . . . to the Board."). Page 17: Insert a new footnote at the end of the final sentence on this page. The new footnote is to read: Because we reverse the Board's finding that TruServe unlawfully implemented its Final Offer, including the TruServ health insurance plan option for employees, there is no occasion to address TruServe's contention that the Board's remedial order should be modified to provide that TruServ would owe no contributions to the Union's Welfare Fund for employees who had opted into the TruServe plan, or, alternatively, would receive a set off against claims it had paid for such employees. Pages 19-20: Delete the last full paragraph beginning on page 19 and ending on page 20 ("Finally, the Company maintains that the Board's remedial order . . . (2d Cir. 1991)."). Page 20: Revise the last sentence of the opinion to read: "Accordingly, we grant the petition in part and deny the petition in part." FOR THE COURT: Mark J. Langer, Clerk BY: Nancy G. Dunn Deputy Clerk

Parentheticals

concluding that union’s “bald statement of disagreement” was insufficient to defeat impasse, without “conduct demonstrating a willingness to compromise further”
Carey Salt Co. v. National Labor Relations Board
concluding that union’s “bald statement of disagreement” was insufficient to defeat impasse, without “conduct demonstrating a willingness to compromise further”
Carey Salt Company v. NLRB
recognizing that “good-faith, hard bargaining” can lead to impasse on mandatory subjects
Troutbrook Company LLC v. NLRB
reasoning that Board’s “focus on abruptness of the Company’s Final Offer [and] on the Union’s surprise upon receiving it ... misses the mark”
Carey Salt Co. v. National Labor Relations Board
noting that “the importance of the issue or issues to which there is disagreement” is a factor used in determining whether an impasse exists (quotation omitted)
National Labor Relations Board v. Whitesell Corp.
reasoning that Board’s “focus on abruptness of the Company’s Final Offer [and] on the Union’s surprise upon receiving it . . . misses the mark”
Carey Salt Company v. NLRB
explaining that although merely labeling an offer as “final” is not dispositive, rejection of final offer led to impasse where company bargained in good faith and no record evidence controverted offer’s status as “last, best, and final”
Carey Salt Company v. NLRB
rejecting Board’s reliance on “its intuitive belief that, upon further bargaining, each side would have made additional concessions”
Dish Network Corporation v. NLRB
rejecting Board’s reliance on “its intuitive belief that, upon further bargaining, each side would have made additional concessions”
Dish Network Corporation v. NLRB
“In short, the parties remain in control of their negotiations, and each party, not the Board, determines at what point it ceases to be willing to compromise.”
Laurel Bay Health & Rehabilitation Center v. National Labor Relations Board
"[A] bald statement of disagreement by one party to the negotiations is insufficient to defeat an impasse. A contrary result would render the ‘contemporaneous understanding’ Taft factor meaningless.”
Laurel Bay Health & Rehabilitation Center v. National Labor Relations Board
“An employer violates th[e] duty to bargain if, absent a final agreement or a bargaining impasse, he unilaterally imposes changes in the terms and conditions of employment.”
KLB Industries, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board

TruServ Corp v. NLRB — freecase.ai