International Paper Co. v. National Labor Relations Board
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
115 F.3d 1045 (1997)
- Written by Tammy Boggs, JD
Facts
The collective-bargaining agreement between International Paper Co. (IP) (defendant) and the unions representing IP’s production and maintenance employees at IP’s paper mill in Mobile, Alabama (the unions) (plaintiffs) expired. Following initial negotiations and tactics, the parties were unable to reach a new agreement. At one point, to prevent a coordinated strike at several other IP facilities, IP locked out 915 production and 285 maintenance employees at the Mobile mill. IP contracted with BE&K Construction Company (BE&K) for BE&K to provide temporary maintenance workers, and IP kept its Mobile mill open with BE&K workers performing maintenance. IP found that it was saving money using BE&K. BE&K submitted a proposal for a permanent subcontract of the mill’s maintenance work, which would result in $7.2 million in savings to IP per year. After fulfilling its bargaining obligations with the unions on the issue of a permanent subcontract, IP implemented the BE&K permanent subcontract while the lockout was still in effect. Many months later, IP canceled the permanent subcontract, and the lockout ended. The unions charged IP with violating the National Labor Relations Act by implementing a permanent subcontract for maintenance work during the lockout. The National Labor Relations Board (the board) found that IP had violated the act. The matter came before the court of appeals.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Henderson, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 820,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 989 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.