This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

Under D's longstanding approach, an employer may rebut that presumption of employee support of a union by showing that, at the time of the refusal to bargain, either (1) the union did not enjoy majority support, or (2) the employer had a 'good-faith' doubt, founded on a sufficient objective basis, of the union's majority support. D has long presumed that new employees hired in nonstrike circumstances support the incumbent union in the same proportion as the employees they replace. D has been all over the place with respect to a presumption for employees hired during a strike. Initially, D appeared to assume that replacements did not support the union. A year later D reversed course completely, stating that striker replacements, like new employees generally, are presumed to support the union in the same ratio as the strikers they replaced. In 1987, D determined that no universal generalizations could be made about replacements' union sentiments that would justify a presumption either of support for or of opposition to the union. D held that it would not apply any presumption regarding striker replacements' union sentiments, but would determine their views on a case-by-case basis. In 1970, the Board certified Teamsters Local 968, as the collective-bargaining agent for P's production and maintenance employees. On May 21, 1979, P made its final offer for a new agreement on May 25, but the Union rejected that offer. P then locked out the 27 bargaining unit employees. The Union then commenced an economic strike. Five employees immediately crossed the picket line and reported for work. P hired 29 permanent replacement employees to replace the 22 strikers. The Union ended its strike offering to accept unconditionally P's May 25 contract offer. P stated that the offer was no longer available. P withdrew recognition from the Union and refused to bargain further, stating that it doubted that the Union was supported by a majority of the employees in the unit. The bargaining unit consisted of 19 strikers, 25 permanent replacements, and the 5 employees who had crossed the picket line at the strike's inception. The Union filed an unfair labor practice charge. The General Counsel found that P had violated §§ 8(a)(1) and 8(a)(5) of the NLRA. P claimed that it had a reasonably based, good-faith doubt of the Union's majority status. The Administrative Law Judge agreed with P and dismissed the complaint. The Board reversed, holding that respondent lacked sufficient objective basis to doubt the Union's majority support. The Board applied the no presumption policy for strike-replacement workers. D ordered P to bargain. P appealed, and the Court of Appeals refused to enforce the order. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.