Mountaire Farms, Inc. - Brief of Amici Curiae - Coalition for a Democratic Workplace

Aug 25, 2026

Uploaded by Margaret

Legal amici curiae brief filed before the National Labor Relations Board in the matter of Mountaire Farms, Inc. vs. United Food and Commercial Workers Union, Local 27, with Oscar Cruz Sosa as petitioner. The submission argues the Board should rescind the contract bar doctrine because its underlying justifications no longer hold, it improperly interferes with employees’ Section 7 rights, and it further restricts decertification petitions through narrow and confusing window periods. Alternatively, the brief seeks targeted modifications to better protect those rights.

LanguageEnglish

CategoryResearch & Report

FormatPDF

Pages24

Reading Time1 h 0 min

AccessFree to download

Interests of the Amici Curiae

Summary of Argument

Argument

The Board Should Rescind the Contract Bar Doctrine

If The Board Does Not Rescind The Contract Bar Entirely, Then the Board Should Modify It to Better Protect The Section 7 Rights Of Employees

Conclusion

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD MOUNTAIRE FARMS, INC., Employer and Case No. 05-RD-256888 UNITED FOOD AND COMMERCIAL WORKERS UNION, LOCAL 27, Incumbent Exclusive Representative, and OSCAR CRUZ SOSA, Petitioner. BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE COALITION FOR A DEMOCRATIC WORKPLACE, AMERICAN TRUCKING ASSOCIATIONS, ASSOCIATED BUILDERS AND CONTRACTORS, ASSOCIATED GENERAL CONTRACTORS OF AMERICA, CHAMBER OF COMMERCE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, INDEPENDENT ELECTRICAL CONTRACTORS, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MANUFACTURERS, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF WHOLESALER-DISTRIBUTORS, NATIONAL FEDERATION OF INDEPENDENT BUSINESS, NATIONAL READY MIXED CONCRETE ASSOCIATION, WESTERN ELECTRICAL CONTRACTORS ASSOCIATION Maurice Baskin James Paretti Emily Carapella LITTLER MENDELSON P.C. 815 Connecticut Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20006 T: 202-842-3400 F: 202-842-0011 [mbaskin@littler.com](mbaskin@littler.com) Attorneys for Amici Curiae INTERESTS OF THE AMICI CURIAE ......................................................................................... 1 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ..................................................................................................... 4 ARGUMENT ................................................................................................................................. 5 I. The Board Should Rescind the Contract Bar Doctrine.......................................... 5 A. The Underlying Grounds Used To Justify The Current Contract Bar Doctrine Are No Longer True............................................................. 5 B. The Current Contract Bar Policy Interferes With The Statutory Right Of Employees To Choose Or Refrain From Choosing Union Representation............................................................................................ 8 C. The Contract Bar’s Infringement of Employee Rights Is Compounded By Narrow And Confusing Window Periods Which Further Restrict The Ability Of Employees To Petition For Decertification.......................................................................................... 10 D. The Contract Bar Doctrine Is Not Needed To Maintain Stability In Collective Bargaining.............................................................................. 11 E. The Board Is Authorized To Rescind Or Modify The Contract Bar Policy, Notwithstanding The Policy’s Age.............................................. 12 II. If The Board Does Not Rescind The Contract Bar Entirely, Then the Board Should Modify It To Better Protect The Section 7 Rights Of Employees............................................................................................................ 14 A. The Board Should Limit the Duration of the Bar Period to One Year.......................................................................................................... 14 B. The Board Should Extend the Decertification Window Periods Up to Six Months Before the End of the Contract and Sixty Days Following the Ratification of the Successor Contract............................. 15 C. The Board Need Not Modify the Formal Requirements for Affording Bar Quality.............................................................................. 16 D. Changed Circumstances During the Bar Period Should Limit Bar Quality...................................................................................................... 16 E. Contracts with Union Security Clauses Unlawful on Their Face Should Preclude the Application of the Contract Bar.............................. 16 CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................ 17 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page(s) Cases Americold Logistics LLC, 362 NLRB 493 (2015) ...............................................................................................................9 Appalachian Shale Products,

FAQs

What is the contract bar doctrine issue addressed in the brief?

The brief challenges the contract bar doctrine’s continuing justification and its effect on employees’ ability to petition for union decertification.

How does the brief argue the doctrine affects employees’ rights?

It contends the current policy interferes with employees’ statutory Section 7 rights to choose or refrain from choosing union representation, and that restrictive window periods further limit petition access.

What alternative remedy does the brief propose if the doctrine is not rescinded?

The brief asks for modifications, including limiting the bar period to one year and extending decertification window periods, along with other protections for employees’ Section 7 rights.

Aug 25, 2026

Uploaded by Margaret