Burns International Security Services, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board

United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Labor Law

Labor LawCollective BargainingUnion Majority StatusEmployer PollingNLRASection 8(a)(5)Section 8(a)(1)good faith doubt

Facts

The union had been certified in 1971, and Burns and the union entered into successive one-year collective bargaining agreements. In 1973, before bargaining for the next contract year, Burns refused to bargain and filed an election petition, asserting a good-faith doubt that the union still represented a majority based on factors including workforce turnover, minimal grievance activity, lack of notice of new union officers, an employee decertification effort, and employee complaints about the union. After the Regional Director demanded additional evidence within 48 hours, Burns solicited written employee views and obtained about 50 letters, then the Board first reinstated Burns' election petition but later found Burns had violated §§ 8(a)(5) and 8(a)(1).

Issue

Whether Burns' refusal to bargain was lawful because it had a good-faith, reasonable doubt of the union's continuing majority status after the certification year. Whether Burns' solicitation of employee letters at the Regional Director's request was a coercive poll or interrogation in violation of § 8(a)(1).

Rule

A certified union's majority status is conclusively presumed for one year after certification. After that period, an employer may refuse to bargain without violating § 8(a)(5) if it establishes either actual loss of majority or a good-faith, reasonable doubt of majority support, based on the totality of the circumstances; essential prerequisites are reasonable grounds to believe the union lost majority status and that the employer did not raise the issue in a context of illegal anti-union activity or conduct aimed at causing disaffection or gaining time to undermine the union.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Tulsa, Prairie Shield Patrol recognized a union that had been certified only 8 months earlier. After hearing several guards complain about dues and seeing that many employees had been recently hired, Prairie Shield refused the union's demand to bargain and filed for an election.

What is the strongest assessment of Prairie Shield's refusal to bargain?

Explanation. The majority opinion states that a certified union's majority status is conclusively presumed for one year after certification. Only after that year may an employer rebut continued majority status by showing actual loss of majority or a good-faith, reasonable doubt. Because only 8 months have passed, the employer cannot rely on post-certification doubt to justify refusal to bargain. (Derived from Burns International Security Services, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board (n.d.).)