Charles D. Bonanno Linen Service, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board

PETITIONER: Charles D. Bonanno Linen Service, Inc.
RESPONDENT: National Labor Relations Board
LOCATION: Kansas State Legislature

DOCKET NO.: 80-931
DECIDED BY: Burger Court (1981-1986)
LOWER COURT: United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit

CITATION: 454 US 404 (1982)
ARGUED: Oct 13, 1981
DECIDED: Jan 11, 1982

ADVOCATES:
James T. Grady - on behalf of the Respondent
Norton J. Come - on behalf of the Respondent
Sidney A. Coven - on behalf of the Petitioner

Facts of the case

Question

Media for Charles D. Bonanno Linen Service, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board

Audio Transcription for Oral Argument - October 13, 1981 in Charles D. Bonanno Linen Service, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board

Audio Transcription for Opinion Announcement - January 11, 1982 in Charles D. Bonanno Linen Service, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board

Warren E. Burger:

Justice White has two judgments and opinions to announce for the Court.

Byron R. White:

The first of these cases, No. 80-931, the Bonanno Linen Service, Inc. against the National Labor Relations Board is here on writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.

Here, there was a prolonged impasse in bargaining between a labor union and a multiemployer bargaining agent representing petitioner and other employers.

The union called a selective strike against petitioner, the other employer has responded with a lockout and the impasse continued.Ultimately, petitioner announced that it was withdrawing from the unit.

The lockout was then ended and negotiations were reopened and a contract was signed. Petitioner, however, refused to sign the agreement and the National Labor Relations Board held that an impasse such has occurred in this case did not warrant the withdrawal from the unit and accordingly found the petitioner committed an unfair labor practice.

The Court of Appeals enforced that order and we granted certiorari because the judgment below was in conflict with the judgments of other Courts of Appeals on similar or identical questions.

We now affirm the judgment agreeing with the Board and the Court of Appeals that there was an unfair labor practice on the facts of this case.

Our reasons were stated at length in an opinion on file with the clerk.

Justice Stevens has filed a concurring opinion.

The Chief Justice has filed a dissenting opinion which is joined by Justice Rehnquist.

Justice O'Connor also dissents in an opinion in which Justice Powell has joined.