International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 21 AFL-CIO v.
National Labor Relations Board (Lucent Technologies, 20Inc.)
Filed April 20, 2009
Cite as 0772750

Bargaining not required in a core business decision such as merger

Lucent Technologies (Lucent) was engaged in manufacturing, installing and selling of telecommunications equipment and services.

Lucent purchased AG Communications Systems (AG). Subsequently, Lucent and AG merged. After the merger, Lucent developed a plan to integrate Lucent and AG installers into a single bargaining unit to be represented by Communications Workers of America (CWA).

As representative of the AG telephone equipment installers before the merger, the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local21, AFL-CIO (Local 21) filed charges against Lucent with the National Labor Relations Board (Board). Lucent’s failure to bargain about its merger with AG was the main thrust of the case.

The ALJ dismissed the complaint. The Board reversed the complaint holding that although Lucent was exempted from bargaining over the decision to merge, it should have bargained with Local 21 for the effects of the merge.

Despite such ruling, the Board did not impose retroactive bargaining or back pay. Instead, it gave a cease and desist order and notice-posting requirement.

Unsatisfied with the decision, Local 21 filed a petition for review. In denying the petition, the appeal court ruled the following:

1. Merger decision was not mandatory for bargaining
   
   The merger resulted to the integration of all operations such as sales, finance, human resources, IT and security to eliminate redundancies and streamline operations. The integration was not aimed at reducing telephone equipment installer labor cost.
   
   Consequently, bargaining was not required for a core business decision such as merger. Moreover, substantial evidence existed that Lucent’s necessity for merger was based primarily on considerations other than labor costs.


2. The board did not abuse its discretion when it did not impose retroactive bargaining or back pay
   
   Installers suffered no detriment from failure to bargain over effects. Any possible harm was outweighed by disruption that would likely be caused by forcing a retroactive bargaining with Local 21 when all Lucent’s employees were now represented by CWA.

With the foregoing considerations, the petition was denied.