## Facts

- Dorsey Trailers operated a unionized trailer-manufacturing plant in Northumberland, Pennsylvania; the workforce had been represented by the UAW for decades.
- As the parties negotiated a successor collective-bargaining agreement in early 1995, the company sought subcontracting and mandatory overtime provisions; the union sought restoration of benefits previously conceded.
- During bargaining, Dorsey implemented an attendance policy and other workplace changes without reaching agreement with the union.
- Negotiations broke down and the union struck.
- During the strike, management made statements the Board found coercive, including threats of plant closure and job loss connected to strike or union activity, and encouraged employees to bypass the union in presenting grievances.
- While the strike continued, Dorsey evaluated relocating operations to Cartersville, Georgia, citing operational and cost advantages such as lower shipping costs, tax incentives, and a larger facility with a more efficient production layout.
- Dorsey closed the Northumberland plant, opened the Cartersville plant, and did not reinstate many striking employees; the General Counsel alleged multiple unfair labor practices (ULPs), including that the relocation was unlawfully motivated and that Dorsey failed to bargain to impasse over the relocation decision.
- An ALJ found violations of NLRA §§ 8(a)(1), 8(a)(3), and 8(a)(5) and recommended extensive relief; the Board largely affirmed and ordered, among other remedies, that Dorsey reopen and restore the Northumberland plant.
- Dorsey petitioned for review; the Board cross-applied for enforcement.

## Issues

1. Whether substantial evidence supported the Board’s findings that Dorsey committed ULPs under NLRA §§ 8(a)(1), 8(a)(3), and 8(a)(5) (including threats, unilateral changes, and striker-related conduct).
2. Whether Dorsey violated § 8(a)(3) by closing the Pennsylvania plant and relocating to Georgia due to anti-union motive.
3. Whether Dorsey violated § 8(a)(5) by failing to bargain to impasse over the decision to relocate the plant.
4. Whether the Board exceeded its remedial authority by ordering Dorsey to reopen and restore the closed Pennsylvania plant.

## Decision

- The Fourth Circuit granted enforcement in part, denied enforcement in part, and remanded for modification of the order.
- The court enforced many of the Board’s ULP findings, concluding substantial evidence supported violations involving coercive statements, certain unilateral changes, and related conduct.
- The court denied enforcement of the Board’s finding that the plant closure/relocation violated § 8(a)(3), holding the move was supported by legitimate economic reasons and the record did not substantially support a finding that anti-union animus caused the closure decision.
- The court denied enforcement of the Board’s finding that Dorsey violated § 8(a)(5) by failing to bargain to impasse over the relocation decision, treating plant location as a managerial decision outside mandatory bargaining.
- The court vacated the restoration remedy requiring reopening of the Pennsylvania plant as beyond the Board’s remedial power given the violations that remained after the relocation-related findings were rejected.

## Legal Principles

- Courts uphold Board factfinding only when supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole.
- Employer threats of plant closure, job loss, or other reprisals tied to union activity can violate § 8(a)(1).
- Unilateral changes in mandatory subjects of bargaining during negotiations can violate § 8(a)(5) (and derivatively § 8(a)(1)).
- A decision to relocate or close a facility for legitimate economic reasons does not violate § 8(a)(3) absent substantial evidence that anti-union motive was the actual cause of the decision.
- Plant-location decisions are generally core managerial judgments and are not mandatory subjects of bargaining under § 8(a)(5), though employers may have a duty to bargain over the effects of closure on employees.
- Board remedies under NLRA § 10(c) must be tailored to the violations found; compelling reopening of a closed facility is not permissible when the closure itself is not unlawful.

## Conclusion

The court enforced the Board’s findings and conventional remedies for several pre-relocation unfair labor practices, but it rejected the Board’s conclusion that the plant closure and relocation were unlawful or required bargaining to impasse, and it set aside the order compelling the employer to reopen the closed plant.


Dorsey Trailers, Inc. v. NLRB, 233 F.3d 831 (4th Cir. 2000)