Skip to main content

Dunbar Ex Rel. National Labor Relations Board v. Carrier Corp.

N.D.N.Y.February 19, 1999No. 5:99-cv-00026Cited 1 time
Plaintiff WinCarrier Corp.
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Judge(s)
Mordue
Nature of Suit — the legal category of the dispute
720 Labor/Management Relations Act
Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
Published
Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
motion to dismiss

Related Laws

Claim Types

Retaliation

Outcome

The court granted the NLRB's petition for injunctive relief, finding reasonable cause to believe the employer violated the National Labor Relations Act by refusing to bargain in good faith over the decision to relocate work from Syracuse to North Carolina and by conditioning non-relocation on the union's acceptance of an unrelated addendum to the collective bargaining agreement.

What This Ruling Means

**What Happened** The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) sued Carrier Corporation on behalf of workers after the company decided to move jobs from Syracuse, New York to North Carolina. The dispute centered on Carrier's refusal to properly negotiate with the union about this relocation decision. Additionally, Carrier told the union they would only keep the jobs in Syracuse if the union agreed to accept an unrelated contract change that had nothing to do with the move. **Court Decision** The federal court sided with the NLRB and granted an injunction against Carrier. The judge found reasonable evidence that Carrier violated federal labor law by failing to bargain in good faith about relocating the work and by using the threat of moving jobs as leverage to force the union to accept unrelated contract terms. **Why This Matters for Workers** This ruling reinforces that employers cannot simply announce job relocations without properly negotiating with unions first. Companies also cannot hold jobs hostage to force workers to accept unrelated contract changes. When employers make decisions that affect union jobs, they must engage in genuine negotiations with worker representatives, not just present ultimatums or use relocation threats as bargaining chips.

This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.

Browse more:Retaliation cases

Browse Related

Facing something similar at work?

Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.

This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. Case outcomes, claim types, and summaries are extracted using AI analysis and may be incomplete or inaccurate. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.

See something wrong, or named in this ruling and want it corrected or redacted? Request a correction.