Quimbee logo
DMCA.com Protection Status

Fall River Dyeing & Finishing Corp. v. National Labor Relations Board

482 U.S. 27 (1987)

Case BriefRelatedOptions
From our private database of 28,500+ case briefs...

Fall River Dyeing & Finishing Corp. v. National Labor Relations Board

United States Supreme Court

482 U.S. 27 (1987)

Facts

For 30 years, Sterlingware Corporation operated a textile dyeing and finishing plant that bought and sold its own textiles as well as dyed and finished textiles on commission for others. The United Textiles Workers of America (plaintiff) had always represented the plant’s workers and had a collective-bargaining agreement (CBA) with the company that expired in 1982. In February 1982, Sterlingware laid off the production employees, then liquidated the company’s assets. Sterlingware’s former top sales executive teamed up with the president of a major customer and formed Fall River Dyeing & Finishing Corporation (defendant) to acquire most of Sterlingware’s assets at auction, including the plant,machinery, and equipment. Fall River resumed dyeing and finishing operations in September 1982, but only on commission. The company posted newspaper ads for employees and supervisors with an initial start-up goal of staffing one shift of 55 employees, with plans to hire a second shift if business went well. Most initial hires and all but one supervisor had been laid off from Sterlingware. In October 1982, the union requested recognition as the workers’ bargaining agent. Fall River refused, even though at the time, 18 of its 21 employees had worked for Sterlingware. By November, Fall River had hired employees filling a complete range of positions and was taking and producing customer orders. Over half its business came from former Sterlingware customers. Fall River attained its goal of a full shift of 55 workers by mid-January 1983. At that point, more than half were former Sterlingware employees. That majority continued until mid-April, when Fall River staffed a second shift. Then ex-Sterlingware employees became the minority, but only by two or three employees. Meanwhile, the union filed charges with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), accusing Fall River of failing to bargain. The NLRB found Fall River qualified as Sterlingware’s successor and had a duty to bargain with the union as of mid-January 1983, when Fall River had hired a representative complement of employees. The appellate court affirmed, and the Supreme Court granted review.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Blackmun, J.)

Dissent (Powell, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 545,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 545,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 28,500 briefs, keyed to 983 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.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 545,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 28,500 briefs - keyed to 983 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership