National Labor Relations Board v. Noah's Ark Processors, LLC, No. 23-1895 (8th Cir. 2024)
Annotate this Case
The case involves Noah’s Ark Processors, LLC, and the United Food and Commercial Workers’ Union. After the expiration of their previous collective-bargaining agreement, the parties began negotiations for a new one. The company's representative, however, had no decision-making authority, and the negotiations were brief and ineffective. Frustrated, the union filed charges with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). The NLRB filed a petition against Noah’s Ark in federal district court for injunctive relief, which was granted, ordering the company to return to the negotiating table. However, the company declared it was unwilling to negotiate and presented another final offer. The district court issued a contempt finding, and the NLRB determined that Noah’s Ark had failed to bargain in good faith.
The parties met seven more times over the next two months, but the negotiations were unsuccessful. Noah’s Ark extended another final offer, which included terms the union had already rejected. The company declared another impasse and made changes unilaterally. The union filed another complaint, and an administrative-law judge found that Noah’s Ark had both bargained in bad faith and prematurely declared an impasse. The NLRB ordered Noah’s Ark to continue negotiating, provide backpay to its employees, reimburse the union for its bargaining expenses, and have its CEO read a remedial notice at an all-employee meeting.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit ruled that substantial evidence supported the NLRB's order and granted enforcement. The court found that Noah’s Ark did not take the negotiations seriously and did not approach the renewed negotiations with an open mind and sincere intention to reach an agreement. The court also agreed with the NLRB's finding that there was no good-faith impasse. The court did not consider Noah’s Ark's objections to the remedies imposed by the NLRB, as the company had not raised these specific objections before the NLRB.
Court Description: [Stras, Author, with Melloy and Stras, Circuit Judges] Petition for Review/Application for Enforcement - NLRB. The Board did not err in concluding that the employer acted unfairly when it refused to bargain in good faith and unilaterally implemented a new collective-bargaining agreement. The employer's tactics, including opening with a "regressive" offer, refusing to engage on other major issues, and never budging on topics, even as the parties made progress on minor points, are substantial evidence of an unwillingness to approach the renewed negotiations with sincere intent to reach an agreement. Further, substantial evidence supports the Board's conclusion that there was a "complete breakdown" in negotiations and that the employer did not bargain in good faith. Finally, the employer's objection to the Board's "extraordinary" remedies is not applicable, because it did not object at the appropriate time nor are there extraordinary circumstances to allow an exception. Enforcement of the Board's decision and order is granted.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.