## Facts

- Dubuque Packing Company, Inc. (Dubuque) processed and packaged beef and pork and operated a plant in Dubuque, Iowa.
- Employees at the Dubuque, Iowa plant were represented by United Food & Commercial Workers International Union, Local 150-A (the union).
- Beginning in the late 1970s, Dubuque experienced sustained financial losses and sought repeated labor concessions from the union, including productivity changes and wage-related savings.
- In March 1981, Dubuque gave contractual notice of its intent to close its “hog kill and cut” operations at the Dubuque plant.
- During ensuing discussions, Dubuque indicated that acceptance of additional labor concessions (including a wage-freeze proposal) could affect whether jobs would remain at Dubuque; the union resisted further concessions and requested financial data, which Dubuque refused to provide.
- On June 10, 1981, Dubuque stated it was considering relocating (rather than closing) the hog kill and cut department and was also considering relocating additional pork-processing work from Dubuque.
- After the union again rejected the wage-freeze proposal, Dubuque told the union that the hog kill and cut closure decision was “irrevocable.”
- A few months later, Dubuque opened pork operations at a newly acquired facility in Illinois and eliminated about 530 hog kill and cut jobs at Dubuque.
- The union filed unfair labor practice charges alleging Dubuque unlawfully failed to bargain over the relocation decision, in violation of NLRA § 8(a)(5) and § 8(a)(1).
- While the charges were pending, Dubuque closed and sold both the Dubuque and Illinois facilities.
- On remand from an earlier D.C. Circuit decision, the NLRB adopted a new relocation framework (often associated with “Dubuque Packing”) and found Dubuque had a duty to bargain over the hog kill and cut relocation; the Board ordered remedies including backpay.
- Dubuque petitioned for review; the NLRB cross-petitioned for enforcement. The union separately petitioned for review, challenging the Board’s refusal to address claims involving a proposed but unexecuted relocation of “pork processing” work.

## Issues

1. Whether the NLRB’s post-remand relocation standard for determining when a relocation decision is a mandatory subject of bargaining is a permissible interpretation of NLRA § 8(d) and Supreme Court precedent.
2. Whether substantial evidence supported the Board’s finding that Dubuque unlawfully refused to bargain over the relocation of the hog kill and cut operations.
3. Whether the Board could apply its new relocation standard retroactively to Dubuque’s 1981 conduct.
4. Whether the Board erred by refusing to consider the union’s unfair labor practice claims concerning Dubuque’s proposed but unexecuted relocation of its pork-processing operation.

## Decision

- The court upheld the Board’s relocation standard as a reasonable construction of the NLRA and consistent with governing Supreme Court decisions.
- The court held substantial evidence supported the Board’s finding that Dubuque had a duty to bargain over the hog kill and cut relocation decision and violated NLRA § 8(a)(5) and § 8(a)(1) by failing to do so.
- The court rejected Dubuque’s challenge to retroactive application of the Board’s new test and held the Board properly applied the standard to the facts of this case.
- The court denied Dubuque’s petition for review and granted the Board’s cross-application for enforcement of the remedial order, including backpay.
- On the union’s separate petition, the court held the Board should have addressed the union’s claims regarding the proposed pork-processing relocation and remanded that issue to the Board.

## Legal Principles

- The NLRB may treat some relocation decisions as mandatory subjects of bargaining under NLRA § 8(d) when the decision is materially tied to labor costs and is capable of being meaningfully addressed through collective bargaining.
- Under the Board-approved “Dubuque” framework, a relocation decision is presumptively bargainable when labor-cost considerations are a factor; the employer may rebut by showing the move reflects reasons such as operational efficiency or changed product/service demands, or that labor-cost concerns are not reasonably susceptible to bargaining-based resolution; the union may still establish bargainability by showing feasible concessions could have changed the decision.
- Courts defer to the NLRB’s reasonable interpretation of the NLRA in defining the line between mandatory bargaining subjects and managerial decisions about the enterprise’s scope and direction, so long as the Board’s approach fits Supreme Court precedent (including *Fibreboard* and *First National Maintenance*).
- The Board’s fact findings on whether a relocation decision triggers a bargaining duty are reviewed for substantial evidence on the record as a whole.
- The Board may apply a newly articulated standard retroactively when fairness factors (including reliance interests and the statutory interest in collective bargaining) do not make retroactivity inequitable.
- When a court’s remand places certain claims within the Board’s charge, the Board must address them rather than decline review based on an unduly narrow view of the remand’s scope.

## Conclusion

The D.C. Circuit approved the NLRB’s relocation-bargaining framework, enforced the Board’s finding that Dubuque unlawfully refused to bargain over a labor-cost-related relocation of hog kill and cut operations and the resulting make-whole relief, upheld retroactive use of the new test, and remanded for the Board to consider the union’s separate claims about a proposed but unexecuted pork-processing relocation.


United Food & Commercial Workers International Union, Local 150-A v. National Labor Relations Board (Dubuque Packing Co.), 1 F.3d 24 (1993)