United Food & Commercial Workers International Union, Local 150-A v. National Labor Relations Board (Dubuque Packing Co.)
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
1 F.3d 24 (1993)
- Written by Jamie Milne, JD
Facts
Dubuque Packing Company (DPC) (defendant) processed and packaged beef and pork. Workers at DPC’s Dubuque, Iowa, plant were represented by the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union (union) (plaintiff). When the plant started losing money, the union agreed to concessions. However, DPC still began considering relocating its pork operations. DPC proposed a wage freeze to prevent relocation, but the union voted against the proposal because DPC refused to share its financials. DPC announced the closure of pork operations at Dubuque. A few months later, DPC opened pork operations at a newly acquired Illinois plant and eliminated about 530 jobs at Dubuque. The union filed complaints with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), arguing that DPC had breached a duty to negotiate the relocation. While the complaints were pending, DPC closed and sold the Dubuque and Illinois plants. The NLRB adopted a new test for determining when employers have a duty to negotiate relocations and concluded that DPC breached a duty to negotiate. The NLRB ordered backpay for terminated employees. DPC petitioned for review of the NLRB’s order, and the NLRB cross-petitioned for the order’s enforcement.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Buckley, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 781,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,200 briefs, keyed to 988 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.
