Narrative Opinion Summary
In this case, Supervalu, Inc.-Pittsburgh Division, operating as Uniontown County Market, appealed an order from the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), which found the Company in violation of Section 8(a)(5) of the National Labor Relations Act. The violation stemmed from the Company's refusal to provide the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Local Union 23, with a sales agreement related to the sale of its grocery store to Nikae Foods. The store, originally owned by Cherry Tree Food Mart, Inc., was subject to a collective bargaining agreement with the Union. Upon taking over, the Company recognized the Union but later refused to provide necessary information, claiming no obligation. The NLRB sought enforcement of its order, and the court determined that the Union's request was relevant and made in good faith, focusing on the compliance with the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN) Act. The court denied the Company's petition and granted the NLRB's cross-application for enforcement, emphasizing the employer's obligation to provide relevant information for union representation. The court found no evidence of bad faith on the part of the Union, affirming the Board's decision under a 'liberal' information disclosure standard as outlined in prior case law.
Legal Issues Addressed
Obligation to Provide Relevant Information under NLRAsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court upheld that the employer must provide relevant information necessary for the union's effective representation of employees, as the Union's request for the sales agreement was relevant to assessing compliance with the WARN Act.
Reasoning: The Board dismissed this argument, affirming the employer's obligation to supply relevant information necessary for the Union's effective representation of employees, as established in prior case law.
Relevance of Information Requests in Union Representationsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court determined that the Union's request for the sales agreement was relevant and made in good faith, thereby supporting the Board's order for the Company to provide the agreement.
Reasoning: The court determined that the Union's request for the sales agreement was relevant and made in good faith, leading to the denial of the Company's petition and granting the NLRB's cross-application for enforcement.
Standard for Information Disclosure in Labor Disputessubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The Board applied a 'liberal' standard for information disclosure, consistent with the Supreme Court's ruling in Acme, emphasizing that requested information is likely to aid the Union in fulfilling statutory obligations.
Reasoning: The relevant standard for information disclosure in legal contexts is 'liberal,' particularly in discovery situations, as established in the Supreme Court case Acme.
Violation of Section 8(a)(5) of the National Labor Relations Actsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The Company was found to have violated Section 8(a)(5) by refusing to provide the Union with the sales agreement, which was deemed necessary for the Union to assess the Company's WARN liabilities.
Reasoning: The Board found the Company violated Section 8(a)(5) of the Act due to insufficient notice and its refusal to provide the agreement, which the Union needed to assess the Company's WARN liabilities.