| Appendix
B
U.S. Federal Court Decision
Data
(89 cases decided
by U.S. Courts of Appeals on issues
of plant closings and threats of plant
closing)
Time Period: 1986 –1993
Table B.1. By Type of Complaint
Type of Conduct
Complained ofa |
Sub-Categories of Conduct |
Number of Charges |
| Closures |
Straightforward closures |
5 (6%)b |
|
Closures with later reopenings (non-union) |
10 (11%) |
|
SUBTOTAL |
15 (17%) |
| Partial Closures |
Refusal to hire/rehire union employees |
6 (7%) |
|
Subcontracting out of union work |
5 (6%) |
|
Closure of unit or department, or substantial reduction in
work |
7 (8%) |
|
SUBTOTAL |
18 (20%) |
| Threats |
|
56 (63%) |
| TOTAL |
|
89 |
a Cases in which both a threat and
an actual closure (either partial
or total) occurred have only been
included in the "closure"
category. Thus, the category "threats"
includes only cases where no closure
actually occurred.
b Percentages of total number of cases may not add up to 100
percent because of rounding. This
total includes one case where all
employees had been dismissed.
Table B.2. By Disposition of Complaint
(where NLRB found that an unfair labor
practice occurred)
| Nature of ULP violationsa |
|
Cases Explicitly Coded as Suchb |
Cases that Appear to Fall Within Category |
Total of Preceding 2 Columns |
| 8(a)(1) |
Upheld |
34 (92%)c |
28 (100%) |
62 (95%) |
|
Rejected |
3 (8%) |
0 (0%) |
3 (5%) |
|
Remanded re: resultd |
0 (0%) |
0 (0%) |
0 (0%) |
| 8(a)(3) |
Upheld |
16 (94%) |
20 (95%) |
36 (95%) |
|
Rejected |
0 (0%) |
1 (5%) |
1 (3%) |
| Remedya |
Number
of Times Awardedb |
| Reinstatement,
job offer, or recall |
47
(53%) |
| Make
whole |
26
(29%) |
| Back
pay |
27
(30%) |
| Cease-and-desist
order |
77
(87%) |
| Return
subcontracted work to bargaining
unit |
2
(2%) |
| Reopen/resume
operations |
5
(6%) |
| Restore
status quo |
2
(2%) |
| Apply
terms of last collective
agreement |
3
(3%) |
| Post
notice |
66
(74%) |
| President
of company publicly read
notice |
1
(1%) |
| Gissel
bargaining order or order
to bargain with an existing
union |
25
(28%) |
| Vacate
election results and/or
order a new election |
12
(13%) |
| Expunge
anti-union by-law |
1
(1%) |
| Remand
(in whole or in part) to
Board for remedy |
7
(8%) |
|
Remanded re: result |
1 (6%) |
0 (0%) |
1 (3%) |
a Neither 8(a)(5) (failure to bargain)
nor illegal lock-out cases were included
in the analysis. In cases where both
a threat of closing and an actual
closing occurred, those issues are
in separate categories here, in contrast
to their combining in Table B.1. (See
note a supra in Table B.1.)
b This includes cases that, although not explicitly coded as 8(a)(1),
implied an 8(a)(1) coding (such as cases that involved threat and other 8(a)(I)
violations). However, it does not include cases that stated "other 8(a)(1) and
8(a)(3) violations."
c Percentages are of each particular type of complaint.
d As contrasted with cases remanded regarding specific remedies.
Table B.3. By Remedy Awarded (by
the NLRB, and affirmed by the Court
of Appeals)
a Many of the cases involved other
unfair labor practice (ULP) complaints,
in addition to those related to plant
closures and/or threats. There is
no way of ascertaining which remedies
were specifically designed to deal
with ULPs that are related to plant
closing without an in-depth analysis
of each case opinion, not possible
within the Secretariat’s time
frame.
b Percentages are of total number of cases; percentages may not add up to
100 percent because of rounding and because of multiple remedies being awarded in
individual cases.
Table B.4. New Organizing
v. Existing Unions
| Status of Relationship |
Sub-status |
Number of Cases |
| New organizing |
|
70 (79%) |
| Existing union |
Successor/alter ego employer |
14 (16%) |
|
Same employer |
5 (6%) |
Table B.5. Successful and
Unsuccessful Complaints, by Status
of Bargaining Relationship
| Status |
Sub-status |
No. of Cases |
Successful Complaints |
Unsuccessful Complaintsa |
| New organizing |
|
70 |
67 (96%) |
3 (4%) |
| Existing union |
Successor/ alter ego employer |
14 |
14 (100%) |
0 (0%) |
|
Same employer |
5 |
3 (60%) |
2 (40%) |
a This category includes both cases
that were rejected and cases that
were remanded with respect to disposition.
Table B.6. Chronological
Progression of Complaints
1986 |
1987 |
1988 |
1989 |
1990 |
1991 |
1992 |
1993 |
Total |
1 |
6 |
9 |
12 |
11 |
18 |
4 |
28 |
89 |
Table B. 7. Particular Unions
Involved
| International Brotherhood of Teamsters (IBT)C17 |
United Electrical Workers (UE)C3 |
WoodworkersC2 |
| United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW)C13 |
Allied Clothing and Textile Workers Union (ACTWU)C3 |
LaborersC2 |
| United Auto Workers (UAW)C9 |
United Mine Workers of America (UMWA)C2 |
Glass, Plastic, & AlliedC2 |
| United Steel Workers of America (USWA)C6 |
International Association of Machinists (IAM)C2 |
Other ALF-CIOC13 |
| International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW)C5 |
HEREC2 |
UnaffiliatedC3 |
| GCIUC3 |
OCAWC2 |
|
Table B.8. Geographic Location of
Employers in 89 Cases Studieda=
| Michigan—10 cases |
New Jersey—7 cases |
Kentucky—5 cases |
| Ohio—9 cases |
California—6 cases |
Indiana—4 cases |
| Pennsylvania—7 cases |
Tennessee—5 cases |
West Virginia—4 cases |
| New York—7 cases |
|
|
a Remaining 25 cases spread
among 15 other states
|
