National Labor Relations Board v. Valleydale Packers, Inc., of Bristol
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner, v. VALLEYDALE PACKERS, INC., OF BRISTOL, Respondent
Subsequent history: aff'd sub nom. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Burns Int'l Sec. Servs., Inc., 406 U.S. 272 (1972). (read from the later opinion; check before relying)
Opinion
PER CURIAM:
In this Labor Board proceeding the Board found that (1) the meat cutters union was the exclusive bargaining representative of certain of the Tobin Packing Company’s employees; (2) that Valleydale was a “successor” to TPC; and (3) that Valleydale had violated the act by refusing to bargain with the union and by unilaterally changing the terms and conditions of employment of the company’s employees represented by the union.
Responding to appellee’s first contention, we conclude that the Board’s finding that Valleydale was a successor employer to its predecessor is supported by substantial evidence. The crucial question for determining successorship is one of continuity — whether the industry remains essentially the same after the transfer of ownership. See NLRB v. Tempest Shirt Mfg. Co. (5 Cir., 1960), 285 F.2d 1 , and NLRB v. Auto Ventshade, Inc. (5 Cir., 1960), 276 F.2d 303 .
We also conclude that the Board had an adequate basis for finding that the successor-employer did not establish that.it had a good faith doubt of the union’s majority status. The mere fact that the collective bargaining agreement between the union and the predecessor did not, of itself, bind the successor, does not prevent the Board’s considering the existence of this collective bargaining agreement, entered into following a card check of members of the union by the predecessor corporation, as adequate proof of the existence of the union’s majority status and the absence of any good faith doubt by the respondent; this is especially true in the absence of any proof of facts that would show that the union no longer represented a majority of the workers, other than some turn-over in employment.
As to the respondent’s contention that the order is too broad, we find no specific point which is called to our attention by respondent as to the manner in which it thinks the order should be modified. With the broad authority granted to the Board to fashion an order, we do not, under these circumstances, consider it appropriate to require the entry of what respondent calls the “usual 8(a) (5) bargaining order.”
The order will be enforced.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 9 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
- National Labor Relations Board v. Burns International Security Services, Inc.
- Zim's Foodliner, Inc., D/B/A Zim's Iga Foodliner, and S&o, Inc., D/B/A Paul's Iga Foodliner v. National Labor Relations Board
- National Labor Relations Board v. Zayre Corp.
- National Labor Relations Board v. Newspapers, Inc., Publisher of the Austin American and the Austin Statesman
- National Labor Relations Board v. Foodway of El Paso, a Division of Kimbell Foods, Inc.
- International Association of MacHinists and Aerospace Workers, Afl-Cio v. National Labor Relations Board, Boeing Company
Most recent
- International Association of MacHinists and Aerospace Workers, Afl-Cio v. National Labor Relations Board, Boeing Company
- National Labor Relations Board v. Newspapers, Inc., Publisher of the Austin American and the Austin Statesman
- National Labor Relations Board v. Foodway of El Paso, a Division of Kimbell Foods, Inc.
- Zim's Foodliner, Inc., D/B/A Zim's Iga Foodliner, and S&o, Inc., D/B/A Paul's Iga Foodliner v. National Labor Relations Board
- National Labor Relations Board v. Polytech, Incorporated, and Terence McGowan D/B/A Polytech, Incorporated
- Emerald Maintenance, Inc. -Cross v. National Labor Relations Board -Cross Public Service, Production and Maintenance Employees Local Union No. 1057, Affiliated With the Laborers' International Union of North America, Afl-Cio v. National Labor Relations Board
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.