The National Labor Relations Board further empowered unions by allowing a union to make
"double breasting" a strike issue during contract negotiations. In the case, the
contractor, Manganaro Corporation, filed a NLRB charge against the painter's union after a
strike following the contractor's refusal to accept the union's "anti-dual-shop"
proposal during negotiations.Double breasting is when a common owner operates a union
and a nonunion business. The NLRB and the courts have historically permitted double
breasting where two entities with common ownership have different management, different
equipment, different customers, and a legitimate business purpose.
Unions have tried to limit double breasting by demanding "anti-dual-shop"
clauses during contract negotiations. Under previous NLRB and court decisions, if a union
engaged in a strike in order to get an anti-dual-shop clause, it violated the NLRA's
secondary boycott prohibition and the prohibition of attempting to affect the labor
policies of a separate employer.
For these reasons, double breasting has been a popular and effective tool for owners
that contract for union and non-union projects. Up until the recent NLRB decision, unions
could not insist that union contractors refrain from setting up a double breasted
non-union operation. However, the Manganaro decision changes the NLRB rule.
Now, according to the NLRB, unions may insist that contractors or contractor
associations include an anti-dual-shop clause in their collective bargaining agreement to
prevent double breasting. If the contractor refuses, the unions may strike.
The Manganaro decision is a continuation of a pro-union/anti-business trend by
the NLRB. The Board's only Republican filed the dissenting opinion.