PCC Structurals, Inc.
National Labor Relations Board
365 N.L.R.B. No. 160 (2017)
- Written by Tammy Boggs, JD
Facts
PCC Structurals, Inc. (PCC) (defendant) manufactured metal castings for use primarily in engines. PCC had three manufacturing locations in Portland, Oregon, and the manufacturing process was the same at each location. After an initial casting or mold was created, welders participated in inspecting and reworking the casting. A group of employees of PCC in Portland, consisting of 102 welders whose skills and training were very similar and unique to welding, sought to unionize as one bargaining unit. However, the welders were scattered in different departments, reported to different supervisors, and did not share one common supervisor. The welders’ labor union (the labor union) filed a representative petition with the National Labor Relations Board (the board). The regional director, after applying the current legal test, found that the petitioned-for bargaining unit was appropriate. Under the current legal standard, if the petitioned-for unit was deemed appropriate, the burden shifted to the proponent of a larger unit to demonstrate that the additional employees the proponent sought to include shared “an overwhelming community of interest.” The regional director was not persuaded by PCC that all the production and maintenance employees—a group of 2,565 employees, including the welders—should form one bargaining unit. The board was called on to review the propriety of the current legal standard.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (No information provided)
Dissent (No information provided)
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.