American Seating Co.
National Labor Relations Board
106 N.L.R.B. 250 (1953)
- Written by Patricia Peters, JD
Facts
In July 1950, American Seating Co. entered into a three-year collective-bargaining contract with Local No. 135 of the UAW-CIO, the certified bargaining representative of American Seating’s production and maintenance employees. Almost two years later, the Pattern Makers’ Association of the AFL (the union) filed a petition with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) seeking to represent a unit of American Seating’s patternmakers, who were in the unit represented by the UAW-CIO. American Seating and the UAW-CIO argued that the three-year contract, which was set to expire in July 1953, barred the election of new representatives. In September 1952, the NLRB issued a decision to the contrary. The bases of the NLRB’s decision were that (1) the contract had already been effective for two years and (2) American Seating and the UAW-CIO had not shown that three-year contracts were customary in the seating industry. The patternmakers elected the union as their bargaining representative, and the NLRB certified the union as bargaining representative on October 6, 1952. Soon after, the union submitted a proposed collective-bargaining agreement to American Seating. American Seating refused to make an agreement with the union, contending that the UAW-CIO had been the patternmakers’ agent when the first contract was made and thus that the patternmakers were still bound by the contract that would expire in July 1953. The NLRB took up the issue for review to decide whether American Seating had violated §§ 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Wagner Act, which requires employers to bargain in good faith with bargaining representatives.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning ()
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.