Double Breasting: Recent NLRB Decision

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.

Return to Construction Law page

Fortney & Klingshirn
4040 Embassy Parkway, Suite 280
Akron, Ohio 44333
telephone 330-665-5445 - fax 665-5446