## Facts

- Levitz Furniture Co. of the Pacific and an incumbent union were parties to a collective-bargaining agreement covering a bargaining unit of employees.
- Before contract expiration, Levitz received a petition it believed was signed by a majority of unit employees stating they no longer wanted union representation.
- Levitz notified the union that it would withdraw recognition upon contract expiration based on its belief the union had lost majority support.
- The union disputed the claimed loss of support and asserted it had evidence of continued majority status.
- After the contract expired, Levitz withdrew recognition and refused to bargain.
- The union filed an unfair labor practice charge alleging violations of NLRA §§ 8(a)(5) and 8(a)(1).
- An ALJ found Levitz unlawfully withdrew recognition and unlawfully refused to bargain; Levitz filed exceptions for Board review.

## Issues

1. Whether an employer may lawfully withdraw recognition from an incumbent union based on a “good-faith doubt” of majority status, or only upon proof the union actually lacked majority support.
2. Whether, and under what conditions, an employer may announce before contract expiration that it will withdraw recognition upon expiration based on evidence obtained beforehand.

## Decision

- The NLRB rejected the “good-faith doubt” standard as a basis for unilateral withdrawal of recognition.
- The NLRB held an employer may withdraw recognition only if it can prove, with objective evidence, that the union in fact lacked majority support at the time recognition was withdrawn.
- The NLRB held an employer withdrawing recognition acts “at its peril”: if challenged, the employer bears the burden to prove actual loss of majority status at the moment of withdrawal or the withdrawal is unlawful and a bargaining order will issue.
- The NLRB permitted “anticipatory withdrawal” announcements within a reasonable time before contract expiration, but required that the union still lack majority support at the time of actual withdrawal; more recent evidence could control.
- Applying the new standard, the NLRB found Levitz violated §§ 8(a)(5) and 8(a)(1) by withdrawing recognition and refusing to bargain.

## Legal Principles

- An incumbent union enjoys a presumption of continuing majority status; unilateral withdrawal is a narrow exception.
- “Good-faith doubt” or uncertainty about majority status does not justify withdrawal of recognition.
- Lawful unilateral withdrawal requires objective evidence establishing the union lacked majority support at the time of withdrawal.
- Withdrawal is undertaken “at the employer’s peril”; the employer bears the litigation burden and risks a remedial bargaining order if proof fails.
- Employers questioning majority status are encouraged to use Board procedures (including an RM petition and secret-ballot election) rather than unilateral withdrawal.
- Anticipatory withdrawal announcements may be made shortly before contract expiration based on objective evidence, but legality turns on majority status at the time recognition is actually withdrawn.

## Conclusion

The NLRB tightened the standard for ending recognition of an incumbent union by requiring objective proof of actual loss of majority support at the moment of withdrawal, rejecting withdrawal based on good-faith doubt, and steering representation disputes toward Board-conducted elections.


Levitz Furniture Co. of the Pac., 333 N.L.R.B. 717 (2001)