Triumph Aerostructures, LLC

National Labor Relations Board - Administrative Judge Opinions

Sep 30, 2019

16-CA-197912 (N.L.R.B. Sep. 30, 2019)

JD–74–19
Red Oak, TX
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
DIVISION OF JUDGES
TRIUMPH AEROSTRUCTURES, VOUGHT
AIRCRAFT DIVISION
and Cases 16–CA–197912
16–CA–198055
LAWRENCE HAMM, an Individual 16–CA–198410
16–CA–198417
and
RODNEY HORN, an Individual
and
THOMAS SMITH, an Individual
and
THE INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE,
AEROSPACE, AND AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT
WORKERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL 848
Megan McCormick and Bryan Dooley, Esqs.,
for the General Counsel.
David R. Broderdorf and Lauren M. Emery, Esqs.
(Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, L.L P.),
for the Respondent.
Rod Tanner, Esq. (Tanner & Associates, P.C.),
for the Charging Party.
DECISION
Statement of the Case
ROBERT A. RINGLER, Administrative Law Judge. This case was tried in Fort Worth,
Texas in April 2019. The complaint alleged that Triumph Aerostructures, Vought Aircraft
Division (Triumph or the Respondent) violated §8(a)(1) and (5) of the National Labor Relations
Act (the Act) by: unilaterally discharging bargaining unit employees without first affording the
International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of
America, Local 848 (the Union) notice and an opportunity to bargain; and laying off bargaining
unit bond shop workers without negotiating to a good faith impasse. As will be explained, these
allegations are meritless. On the record, I make the following
JD–74–19
2
FINDINGS OF FACT1
I. JURISDICTION5
Annually, Triumph, a corporation with a facility in Red Oak, Texas, manufactures
aircraft components, and sells and ships more than $50,000 in products directly outside of
Texas.2 I find, as a result, that it is an employer engaged in commerce, within the meaning of
§2(2), (6) and (7) of the Act. I also find that the Union is a §2(5) labor organization.10

II. ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Introduction
15
Between 1968 and 2013, the Union represented a multi-facility, production and
maintenance unit at Triumph’s Dallas and Grand Prairie, Texas plants. (JT Exh. Z). In 2013,
Triumph closed these plants and opened its Red Oak facility.3 In early 2014, it voluntarily
recognized the Union as the representative of this bargaining unit (the Unit):4
20
Included: All production and maintenance employees employed at … [the]
Red Oak [plant] ….
Excluded: All other employees, electricians, office clerical employees,
managerial employees and guards, professional employees and 25
supervisors as defined in the Act.
(JT Exh. A). Before its recognition, Triumph set initial terms and conditions of employment,
including discipline and layoff policies. In 2015, the parties began bargaining. On March 25,
2018, they finalized a contract that ran until 2021 (the 2018 contract). (JT Exh. Y). This 30
litigation involves Triumph’s actions between its 2014 recognition and the 2018 contract (i.e.,
the post-recognition/pre-contract period). The complaint challenged its layoff and unilateral
discharges during this period. The central facts are undisputed.
B. Unilateral Discharges535
1. Facts
a. Extant Disciplinary Policy
40
In 2013, prior to its Union recognition, Triumph set this Red Oak discipline policy:

1 Unless otherwise stated, factual findings arise from joint exhibits, stipulations, and undisputed evidence.
2 Its aerospace customers include Bell Helicopter, Boeing, Gulfstream, Northrup Grumman, and Pratt &
Whitney.
3 In October 2013, Triumph began transferring bargaining unit employees to the Red Oak facility.
4 There are approximately 500 employees in the Unit.
5 These allegations are listed under ¶¶ 12, 14, 15 and 17 of the complaint.
JD–74–19
3
General Offenses
The following offenses are subject to the disciplinary action indicated: ….
(3) Substandard, careless, or inefficient work, ….5
Disciplinary Actions - General Offenses
Committing any General Offense can result in the following actions being taken:
(1) First offense: Written first warning notice,10
(2) Second offense of any nature: Second written warning notice.
(3) Third offense of any nature: Final written warning notice, disciplinary
suspension, or discharge,
(4) Fourth offense of any nature: Discharge ….
15
Major Offenses
The following offenses are subject to the disciplinary action indicated: ….
(2) Gross negligence in performing duties.
(3) Failure to report any errors … or poor workmanship to supervision,….20
Disciplinary Actions - Major Offenses
Committing any Major Offense can result in the following actions being taken:
(1) First offense: Written final warning notice, written final warning notice 25
and disciplinary suspension, or discharge.
(2) Second offense: Discharge, ….
(JT Exh. A).
30
b. Thomas Smith and Rodney Horn Disciplines
On November 17, 2016 Triumph suspended Unit employee Smith and then fired him
for poor workmanship following its investigation. (R. Exh. 11). On April 3, 2017, Triumph
issued Unit employee Horn a 5-day suspension for gross negligence. (JT. Exh. Z; R. Exh. 13). 35
These actions occurred without notice to the Union or pre-implementation bargaining.

2. Analysis6
a. Legal Precedent 40
In Oberthur Technologies of America Corp., 368 NLRB No. 5, slip op. at 3 (2019), the
Board held as follows:

6 The parties agreed that these decisions were discretionary under Total Security Management Illinois I, LLC, 364
NLRB No. 106 (2016).
JD–74–19
4
[W]hen an employer does not change its pre-existing disciplinary policies but
merely exercises some discretion in applying them, the imposition of discipline
pursuant to those policies does not constitute a change in a term or condition of
employment …. and the employer is not required to give the union notice and
opportunity to bargain before it makes its disciplinary decision ….5
b. Discussion
Triumph did not violate the Act, when it unilaterally disciplined Smith and Horn without
affording the Union notice and the opportunity to conduct pre-implementation bargaining. 10
Triumph disciplined them pursuant to its pre-existing Red Oak discipline policy covering gross
negligence and poor workmanship. (JT Exh. A). Although Triumph exercised discretion, as
stipulated, when applying its policy, it did not change any term or condition of employment that
required pre-implementation bargaining. Oberthur Technologies, supra.
15
C. Bond Shop Layoff7
1. Facts
a. Extant Layoff Policy20
In 2013, Triumph set the following Red Oak layoff policy:
Definitions RIF Unit: The peer group against which employees in the
same classification are compared …. 25
Notifications … The layoff notification period … is typically one week ….
General Rules Management will … assess … the … statement of work
and determine the skills and abilities needed …. [and] 30
determine … where reductions will occur.
Employees … will be rated … upon … the skills and
abilities defined above. In addition, factors such as
experience, performance, education and documented 35
concerns regarding performance, conduct or similar
issues, will also be considered ….
HR … must … approve all layoffs ….
40
(Id.).

7 These allegations are listed under ¶¶13–14, and 16–17 of the complaint.
JD–74–19
5
b. 2016 – 2017 – Decreased Orders
In 2016 and 2017, Triumph experienced an unexpected downfall in orders from Bell
Helicopter and Gulfstream. (JT Exh. Z). This shortfall reduced its bond shop staffing needs,8
which, in turn, caused it to be overstaffed by 15 workers. (GC Exh. 10, R. Exhs. 15-16). On 5
this basis, Triumph was forced to consider a layoff.
c. March 28, 2017 – Layoff Notice
On this date, Triumph sent this letter to the Union:10
This letter serves as official notification … that the Company tentatively plans
to … layoff … 12 … unit employees in the bond shop. The Company … is
considering a layoff [for] … April 21, 2017 ….
15
[L]ayoffs are due to a … production slowdown in G600 and P-42 Programs ….
[U]nit employees subject to layoff have not yet been selected from within the
bond shop. The Company intends to comply with the status quo layoff policy in
making layoff selections. This layoff policy has been in effect [since] …. 201420
….
The Company also is willing to discuss … these tentative layoffs …. [and] a
potential loan agreement to keep … employees gainfully employed …. [P]lease
let me know … [by] … April 7, 2017, if … the Union wishes to participate in 25
the layoff process, discuss loan potentials or would like additional information.
The Company intends to make a final decision … by … April 10, 2017.
(JT Exh. G).
30
d. March 30, 2017 – Union Requests Layoff Bargaining
The Union requested bargaining, and sought this information:
 A list of Bond Shop employees, in seniority … order.35
ï‚· A list of Bond Shop employees not transferred to Red Oak from Marshall
Street or Jefferson Street that are … unit employees … [by] hire date ….
ï‚· Any disciplinary action the Company will use in the layoff evaluation
process for all Bond Shop employees.
ï‚· Attendance unit cards for all Bond Shop employees from April 1, 2016 40
through April 1, 2017.
 A list of employees separated by Lead for Bond Shop assignments ….
(JT Exhs. H, I).
45

8 The bond shop finishes aerospace components by applying adhesive to, and chemically bonding, sub-parts.
JD–74–19
6
e. March 31, 2017 – Triumph’s Reply to the March 30 Information Request
Triumph offered this reply to the Union’s information request:
1. A list of Bond Shop employees, in seniority order …. 5
The requested list is attached hereto as Attachment 1….
2. A list of Bond Shop employees not transferred to Red Oak from
Marshall Street or Jefferson Street ….10
The Company … provided a list of all bond shop employees … above
[with hire dates showing those hired after Red Oak’s opening] ….
3. Any disciplinary action the Company will use in the layoff 15
evaluation process for all Bond Shop employees.
The Company proposes to consider any and all active discipline ….
4. Attendance unit cards for all Bond Shop employees from April 1, 20
2016 through April 1, 2017.9
The Union's request for a calendar years' worth of attendance cards is
burdensome and will require numerous man hours to produce …. The
Company requests the Union clarify … why such information is 25
pertinent to … bargaining over the … tentative layoff plans. Inasmuch
as … attendance discipline would be considered in the evaluation
process, the Union has been provided all such discipline …. [A]
ttendance cards would not be used in said evaluation, so …. [p]lease
clarify … relevance …. 30
5. A list of employees separated by Lead for Bond Shop employees.
The requested list is attached hereto as Attachment 2 ….
35
(JT Exh. J).
f. April 5, 2017 – Triumph’s Initial Layoff Proposal
Triumph offered this proposal to the Union:40
ï‚· ln lieu of layoff, the Company may loan not more than 20 bond shop
employees to other UAW job classifications … for a period not to exceed
six (6) months from the date of the instant agreement.
 Employees who are loaned will not have their compensation affected …. 45

9 Triumph ultimately provided these time cards at an April 19 bargaining session. (GC Exh. 5).
JD–74–19
7
 The Company … [has] sole discretion to determine … loaned [workers] ….
 The Company … [has] sole discretion to determine the[ir] job assignments
….
 Should an individual employee refuse to be loaned … , the employee shall
be deemed to voluntarily terminate his employment.5
This agreement … shall not be cited by either party as precedent setting.
(JT Exh. K). Danielle Garrett, Director of Employee and Labor Relations and chief
spokesperson, stated that Triumph’s proposal was generous, allowed affected workers to keep 10
their jobs without a pay cut, and capped displacement at 6 months. She was both surprised and
disappointed by the Union’s rejection of this solution.
g. April 6, 2017 – Bargaining Session10
15
The parties attended a layoff bargaining session. Union president James Ducker and
several employees represented the Union, while Garrett and Human Resources Representatives
Jorge Gil and Wendy Bailey represented Triumph. (R. Exh. 5). The Union offered this counter:
ï‚· In lieu of layoff, the Company may loan not more than 20 bond shop 20
employees … for a period not to exceed six (6) months ….
 Employees who are loaned will not have their compensation affected ….
ï‚· The Company will seek volunteers to loan.
ï‚· The Company will make every attempt to place loaned employees into
positions where they may have previous experience or may be 25
successful.
ï‚· The Company will collaborate with the Union to satisfy these loans.
 Should an individual employee refuse to be loaned … , the employee
shall be laid off for a period not to exceed six (6) months ….
30
(JT Exh. L). In rejecting the Union’s proposal, Garrett explained that the layoff required
Triumph to unilaterally and expeditiously choose the temporary transfers for business reasons,
and that first seeking volunteer transfers could detrimentally affect bond operations that were
already strained. See also (R. Exh. 5, GC Exh. 3). She added that the Union’s proposal
contained ambiguities that would cause unexpected interpretation and labor relations issues. 35
Triumph offered this counter, which added a vehicle to handle unexpected transfer
issues:
ï‚· In lieu of layoff, the Company may loan not more than 20 bond shop40
employees … for … [up to] six (6) months ….
 Employees who are loaned will not have their compensation affected ….
 The Company … [has] sole discretion [as to] … [who] will be loaned ….
 The Company … [has] sole discretion [as to their] … assignments ….

10 The parties often combined broader bargaining for a first collective-bargaining agreement with bond shop layoff
negotiations at these meetings.
JD–74–19
8
 Should the Union have concerns regarding a loaned employee … , the
Company will meet … to … attempt to reach mutual resolution.
 Should an individual employee refuse to be loaned … , the employee
shall be deemed to voluntarily terminate his employment.
 Should the need arise to increase the number of employees loaned out … 5
, the parties will meet to discuss the possibility of an increase of scope.
(JT Exh. M). Garrett repeated that Triumph needed flexibility regarding who to select and
could not first solicit volunteers. Ducker indicated that the Union rejected this proposal because
he felt that it was unfair for Triumph to discharge workers that refused transfers. 10
h. April 7, 2017 – Bargaining Session
Ducker, Garrett and others attended. (R. Exh. 6). The Union offered this counter:
15
 … [E]mployees shall be … [laid off in classification] seniority order
….
 The l[east] … senior employees will be offered a transfer into …
Assembly …. [and] placed into … [a] training Assembly class.
 Employees … transferred from the Bond Shop … into … Assembly …. 20
will not have their compensation or seniority calculation date affected.
(JT Exh. O). Garrett rejected this proposal. She pointedly disagreed with bond shop workers
transferring into assembly with no experience and retaining their wage, which was higher than
the wage paid to many experienced assemblers. See also (R. Exh. 6, GC Exh. 4). 25
Later that day, Triumph made this counter:
 …. the Company … [will] utilize a modified rack and stack based upon
competencies as proposed by the Union …. 30
 Layoffs shall be … in accordance with the rack and stack scoring, based
upon an employee’s overall performance rating, with the bottom rated
employees laid off in inverse seniority order by job classification.
Seniority shall be determined by the last date of hire.
ï‚· Employees, who are affected by layoff, may apply for an open assembly35
position at … Red Oak …. Any employee affected by layoff who applies
for an open assembly position, shall be given an offer of employment for
the appropriate assembly labor grade at an hourly rate of pay
commensurate with [their] … assembly … experience.
ï‚· Employees affected by layoff who apply and accept an offer for an 40
assembly position will retain their seniority without a break in service.
ï‚· Employees who accept a position in assembly shall be on a probationary
period for ninety (90) working days. Should the employee not meet
expectations in assembly, the employee shall be terminated.
ï‚· Employees who are laid off from either the bond or NDI classification 45
shall have no rights to re-enter the[ir] classification ….
JD–74–19
9
(JT Exh. P). This proposal attached a “rack and stack” competency assessment, which allotted
up to 3 points in these areas: attendance, safety, quality, discipline, and skillset.11 (Id).
i. April 14, 2017 – Union’s Third Layoff Proposal5
The Union offered this counter:
 Offer … a plant-wide retirement incentive to reduce … bond shop [staff].
ï‚· Employees who are affected by layoff may apply for an open assembly 10
position at … Red Oak …. Any [laid off] employee … who applies for
an open assembly position shall be given an offer … at their current rate
….
 Employees affected by layoff who … accept an offer for an assembly
position will retain their seniority and benefits without a break in service.15
ï‚· Employees who accept a position in assembly shall be on a probationary
period for ninety (90) working days. Should the employee not meet
expectations … , the employee shall be placed on indefinite layoff.
In the event that the bond shop has openings within the next 15 months, …:20
 [Laid off] employees … may apply for … open … position[s] at … Red
Oak …. Any employee affected by layoff who applies for an open bond
shop position shall be given an offer of employment at the bond shop
labor grade and hourly rate of pay … held at the time of layoff.25
 [Laid off] employees … who … accept an offer for a bond shop position
will retain their seniority and benefits without a break in service.
(JT Exh. Q). The Union was concerned about the subjectivity of using rack and stack
criteria. 30
j. April 18, 2017 – Union Information Request
The Union then made this information request:
35
The Union requests all evaluations of Bond Shop and NDI employees, the
competencies used, [and] who evaluated each employee ….
(JT Exh. R). This information was provided on April 20, 2017. (JT Exh. U).
40
k. April 19, 2017 – Bargaining Session
Ducker, Garrett and others attended. (R. Exh. 7). Triumph provided Unit attendance
cards to the Union, in full satisfaction of the Union’s March 30 information request. (GC Exh.
5, R. Exh. 7). Garrett questioned the several inconsistencies in the Union’s April 14 proposal 45

11 These ratings were mostly based upon objective criteria such as attendance, safety, quality and other disciplines.
JD–74–19
10
and rejected it due to, inter alia, its failure to fully explain the layoff and recall mechanism.
The Union then offered this counter:
ï‚· Employees within the bond shop who have been employed for less than forty-5
eight (48) months … shall be evaluated and laid off under the initial terms and
conditions of employment, excluding active discipline.
 [Laid off] employees … may apply for … open assembly positions at … Red
Oak location …. [and] shall be given an offer of employment at their current rate
…. 10
 [Laid off] employees … who … accept an offer for an assembly position will
retain their seniority and benefits without a break in service.
ï‚· Employees who accept a position in assembly shall be on a probationary period
for ninety (90) working days. Should the employee not meet expectations in
assembly based on skill alone, the employee shall be placed on indefinite layoff.15
In the event that the bond shop has openings within the next 15 months, the
following shall apply:
 [Laid off] employees … may apply for … open bond shop position[s] at … Red 20
Oak [and] …. shall be given an offer … at the bond shop labor grade and hourly
rate … held at the time of layoff.
 [Laid off] employees [who] … accept an offer [in the] … bond shop … will
retain their seniority and benefits without a break in service.
25
(JT Exh. S). Garrett rejected this proposal. She explained that Triumph could not limit the
bond shop layoff to workers with 4 years of service, would not place bond shop employees in
lower-paying assembly positions at their current rates, and would not create recall rights for
transferred bond shop workers, who do not meet performance expectations. (R. Exh. 7). The
Union then requested several additional days to bargain and asked that the layoff be delayed, 30
which Triumph rejected. Garrett averred that, by this point, the parties had exhausted their
layoff approaches, had reached an impasse, and that continued discourse would be fruitless.
Ducker indicated that additional time could have been proved useful.
Given Garrett’s declaration of impasse, Triumph advised the Union that:35
[T]he parties have … bargain[ed] and have been unable to reach … agreement
….
The Company … [will] move forward with its … layoff plan for the bond shop40
and will … layoff … twelve (12) … employees on … April 21, 2017 ….
(JT Exh. T).
45
JD–74–19
11
l. April 20, 2017 – Triumph’s Reply to the Union’s Pending Information
Request
On this date, Triumph stated as follows:
5
Attached please find the rating or all bond shop employees ….
Also attached are the competencies used and the description hereof.
As far as NDI ratings, the Company has elected not to proceed with a layoff of 10
NDI employees … [and] evaluations are not available to provide the Union ….
(JT Exh. U).
m. April 21, 2017 – Bond Shop Layoff15
Triumph laid off 12 Unit employees from its bond shop. (JT Exh. Z). The layoff was
conducted in accordance with Triumph’s final layoff proposal.
2. Analysis20
a. Precedent
An economic layoff decision and its effects are mandatory bargaining topics, which
require notice and an opportunity to bargain in good faith. See, e.g., McClain E-Z Pack, 25
Inc., 342 NLRB 337 (2004); Toma Metals, Inc., 342 NLRB 787, 787 fn. 1 (2004). This
principle remains true, even where a company previously exercised unlimited discretion before
unionization. See Adair Standish Corp., 292 NLRB 890 fn. 1 (1989), enfd. in relevant part 912
F.2d 854 (6th Cir. 1990). A bargaining impasse cannot be reached where an employer presents
a union with a “fait accompli” regarding a layoff. Dorsey Trailers, Inc., 327 NLRB 835, 858 30
(1999), enfd. granted in part and denied in part 233 F.3d 831 (4th Cir. 2000).
When negotiations for a collective-bargaining agreement are not in progress, an
employer must give a union notice of an intended change sufficiently in advance to permit an
opportunity to bargain meaningfully about the change. Bottom Line Enterprises, 302 NLRB 35
373, 374 (1991), enfd. mem. sub nom Master Window Cleaning, Inc. v. NLRB, 15 F.3d 1087
(9th Cir. 1994). While negotiations for a collective-bargaining agreement are ongoing,
however, “an employer's obligation to refrain from unilateral changes extends beyond the mere
duty to give notice and an opportunity to bargain; it encompasses a duty to refrain from
implementation at all, unless and until an overall impasse has been reached on bargaining for 40
the agreement as a whole.” Id. There are exceptions, however, for situations where a union
engages in tactics designed to delay bargaining and when economic exigencies compel prompt
action. R.B.E. Electronics of S.D., 320 NLRB 80, 81 (1995). Moreover, even where a topic
can be carved out of contract negotiations and handled separately, the employer must
nevertheless provide the union with notice and an opportunity to bargain. Id. Once it does so, 45
the employer is permitted to act unilaterally if the union fails to promptly request bargaining or
if the parties, after good-faith bargaining, reach an impasse. Id. The Board defines the
JD–74–19
12
economic exigency exception as a heavy one, which requires implementation when the action
is taken or involves an economic business emergency requiring prompt action. R.B.E.
Electronics of S.D., supra.
In Taft Broadcasting Co., 163 NLRB 475, 478 (1967), enfd. sub. nom. Television 5
Artists, AFTRA v. NLRB, 395 F. 2d 622, (D.C. Cir. 1968), the Board defined impasse as a
situation where “good-faith negotiations have exhausted the prospects of concluding an
agreement.” The burden of demonstrating an impasse rests on the party making the claim.
Serramonte Oldsmobile, Inc., 318 NLRB 80, 97 (1995), enfd. in pert. part 86 F.3d 227 (D.C.
Cir. 1996). The question of whether a valid impasse exists is a “matter of judgment” and among 10
the relevant factors are “[t]he bargaining history, the good faith of the parties in negotiations,
the length of negotiations, the importance of the issue or issues as to which there is
disagreement, [and] the contemporaneous understanding of the parties as to the state of
negotiations.” Taft Broadcasting Co., supra at 478. The commission of serious, unremedied
unfair labor practices precludes a finding of a valid impasse. See, e.g., Royal Motor Sales, 329 15
NLRB 760, 762 (1999).
b. Discussion
As an initial matter, the parties properly separated bond shop layoff bargaining from 20
collective bargaining for the entire agreement. The unanticipated reduction in Bell Helicopter
and Gulfstream orders in 2016 and early 2017 caused bond shop over-staffing, which required
immediate action. Triumph, therefore, satisfied its burden of demonstrating an economic
exigency requiring immediate redress that could not wait for the finalization of a collective
bargaining agreement that occurred a year later. See R.B.E. Electronics of S.D., supra.1225
Triumph reached a valid layoff bargaining impasse with the Union and properly
implemented its last proposal following this impasse. Several factors demonstrate a good faith
impasse. See Taft Broadcasting, supra. First, the parties enjoy a stable, 50-year, bargaining
history. Triumph affirmed this positive relationship by voluntarily recognizing the Union in 30
2014 following its Red Oak opening and then finalizing contract in 2018 after good faith
bargaining and absent a work stoppage. Second, the volume of bargaining exchanges
demonstrates a valid impasse. The parties met no fewer than 4 times to negotiate, discussed 7
different written proposals, and exchanged multiple information requests.13 Third, the breadth
of layoff topics covered demonstrates a legitimate impasse. The parties comprehensively 35
covered, inter alia, transfers in lieu of layoffs, seniority-based layoff systems, other layoff
ranking systems, recall and separation rights, voluntary retirement systems, and voluntary
separations. Garrett repeatedly offered reasonable and detailed rationales for Triumph’s
stances, highlighted ambiguities in Union proposals that could trigger unforeseen labor
relations problems, and continuously asked valid questions to aid her understanding. Fourth, 40
Triumph’s overall willingness to shift from its opening position on transfers to a more
standardized layoff ranking system showed flexibility consistent with good faith bargaining.
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, Triumph’s initial April 5 proposal was abundantly

12 Notably, the GC has not alleged that Triumph improperly separated layoff bargaining from overall negotiations.
13 The GC has not alleged that Triumph failed to reasonably fulfill the Union’s information requests, which in
some cases sought data that offered, at best, only remote bearing on the layoff issues at hand.
JD–74–19
13
reasonable, and demonstrated a strong desire to reach agreement. Its opening salvo was to
altruistically solve the overstaffing dilemma by not laying off anyone and only transferring
affected bond shop workers to other departments for a short duration at their current pay. A
proposal of ongoing employment at the same wage without the gamesmanship of holding it
back until the eleventh hour of negotiations hardly paints the picture of bad faith. In sum, 5
Triumph acted with fairness during bargaining, reached a valid impasse, and did not unlawfully
implement its last layoff proposal.
Conclusions of Law
10
1. Triumph is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of §2(2), (6),
and (7) of the Act.
2. The Union is a §2(5) labor organization.
15
3. Triumph did not violate the Act in the manner alleged in the complaint.
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law, and on the entire record, I issue the following
recommended14
20
ORDER
The complaint is dismissed.
Dated Washington, D.C. September 30, 201925
Robert A. Ringler 30
Administrative Law Judge

14 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the Board’s Rules and Regulations, the findings,
conclusions, and recommended Order shall, as provided in Sec. 102.48 of the Rules, be adopted by the Board and
all objections to them shall be deemed waived for all purposes.
W4 -1,:,p,