April 23, 2014

Employer’s Attempt to Escape Union Agreement Unsuccessful

In these tough economic times, many unionized employers are carefully considering their options to get rid of union collective bargaining agreements. Many employers assume that by simply shutting down the business, collective bargaining agreements may be terminated and struggling businesses may be resuscitated. The recent decision of Barker v. Conner, Inc. out of the Northern District of Illinois is a classic example of an employer jumping from the frying pan into the fire and accomplishing nothing but the creation of back pay liability to add to their financial woes.

In the Barker case, a principal owned and ran Conner, a unionized facility. He later purchased and made the ultimate business decisions for a non-union company called Heidenreich. He largely turned over the reins for the unionized Conner operation. When Conner found itself in financial difficulty in 2010, the former manager contacted the union and attempted to negotiate a reduced wage package. The owner then approached the Conner drivers to encourage them to decertify the union and, after the union was unresponsive to the renegotiation effort, advised the union that Conner was going out of business. Several of the Conner drivers received work at non-union Heidenreich. The union filed an unfair labor practice charge and sought an injunction to set aside Conner’s shut down.

Both the Board and the federal district court agreed with the union and held as follows. First, Heidenreich was held to be the alter ego of unionized Conner. Second, the owner’s statements regarding decertification constituted unlawful promises and threats. Third, the owner engaged an unlawful direct dealing with employees in attempting to negotiate a lower wage rate for the unionized operation. Finally, the employer failed to negotiate with the union about the effects of Conner’s closure. Based upon the respective merits, a remedial order was entered by the court forcing non-union Heidenreich to recognize the union, cease making threats to, and bargain directly with employees, apply the terms of the expired collective bargaining agreement to the non-union entity, and make drivers whole who were not paid union wage rates.

The case is a vivid reminder that collective bargaining agreements are treated differently from other contracts. An employer has a duty to negotiate with the union, even if the collective bargaining agreement has expired. While the shutdown of a business is always allowed under federal labor law, there is a corresponding duty to engage in effects bargaining with the union about the shutdown and both the union agreement and federal labor law may require application of the agreement to the successor employer springing from the ashes of the closed business. Employers can spend a great deal of time, effort and money shutting down one business and forming another only to find that they have arrived where they started. Even in these tough economic times, federal labor law may trump economic reality. One need only examine the Board’s decision to take on Boeing and its transfer of an assembly line to South Carolina, as evidence of this.

© 2002-2013 by Williams Kastner ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

About the Author


Judd Lees has been practicing labor and employment law since 1979 and is a Member in the Seattle office. He is the chair of the firm’s Labor and Employment Law Practice Group. Mr. Lees represents both unionized and nonunionized employers in the private and public sector, including clients in the construction, manufacturing and the transportation industries before federal and state agencies, including the Department of Labor, National Labor Relations Board and the Washington State Department of Labor and Industries.


Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is  intended to be  a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.

The National Law Review - National Law Forum LLC 4700 Gilbert Ave. Suite 47 #230 Western Springs, IL 60558  Telephone  (708) 357-3317 If you would ike to contact us via email please click here.