International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers v. National Labor Relations Board

765 F.2d 175 (1985)

From our private database of 46,300+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers v. National Labor Relations Board

United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
765 F.2d 175 (1985)

  • Written by Tammy Boggs, JD

Facts

Illinois Coil Spring Company (the company) (defendant) manufactured automobile parts at three divisions, including Milwaukee Spring and McHenry Spring. The International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America (the union) (plaintiff) represented Milwaukee Spring employees, while McHenry Spring employees were nonunion. Between 1980 and 1983, the union and the company had a collective-bargaining agreement with provisions covering wages, management rights, and various other subjects. However, there was no provision covering work preservation, i.e., requiring work to be performed at Milwaukee Spring. In 1982, the company asked the union to forgo a scheduled wage increase due to the company’s deteriorated financial condition from a major contract loss. The company indicated that it was considering relocating its Milwaukee Spring assembly operations to McHenry Spring, where labor costs were lower, but the company welcomed the union’s proposals or suggestions. Substantial bargaining ensued, and the union employees voted to reject any contract concessions. Thereafter, the company decided to transfer assembly operations to the McHenry Spring facility. The union initiated an action before the National Labor Relations Board (the board). In the board’s final decision, it dismissed the union’s case, finding that there was no work-preservation clause in the collective-bargaining agreement and the company was not restricted in any way from deciding to relocate its operations. Thus, the board found that the company did not impermissibly modify the collective-bargaining agreement in violation of the act. The union appealed.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Edwards, 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 820,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

  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.

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.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 820,000 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
  • 46,300 briefs - keyed to 989 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