National Labor Relations Board v. ACME Industrial Company

PETITIONER:National Labor Relations Board
RESPONDENT:ACME Industrial Company
LOCATION:Hayden Residence

DOCKET NO.: 52
DECIDED BY: Warren Court (1965-1967)
LOWER COURT: United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

CITATION: 385 US 432 (1967)
ARGUED: Nov 14, 1966
DECIDED: Jan 09, 1967

Facts of the case

Question

Media for National Labor Relations Board v. ACME Industrial Company

Audio Transcription for Oral Argument – November 14, 1966 in National Labor Relations Board v. ACME Industrial Company

Audio Transcription for Opinion Announcement – January 09, 1967 in National Labor Relations Board v. ACME Industrial Company

Potter Stewart:

In number 52, I also have for announcement the opinion and judgment of The Court.

This case is National Labor Relations Board against ACME Industrial Company.

The case is here on writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.

In the C & C Plywood case which I just announced, we dealt with one aspect of an employer’s duty to bargain during the term of a collective bargaining agreement.

In this case another aspect of that problem is involved, involving the obligation to furnish information that allows the Union to make an informed decision as to whether or not to process grievances.

The Board filed that the information which the Union requested of the employer was necessary in order to enable the Union to evaluate intelligently the grievances it had filed.

And the Board pointed out that the collective bargaining agreement contained no provision by which the Union waived any statutory rights to the information that requested and accordingly Board upheld a charge of the employers’ violation of a duty under Section 8 (a)(5) of the Act to bargain in good faith.

The Court of Appeals refused to enforce the Board’s order, but did not question the relevance of the information which the Union had requested, nor did it question the Board’s finding that the Union has not waived its right to the information but The Court ruled that the existence in the collective bargaining agreement of a provision for binding arbitration of differences concerning the meaning and application of the agreement foreclose the Board absolutely from exercising its statutory power.

Those reasons discussed in the written opinion, we disagree with the Court of Appeals and accordingly we reverse the judgment and remand the case till the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit for enforcement of the Board’s order.