1. State the Board’s guidelines for withdrawal from multi-employer units as set forth in Retail Associates.
2. Is an impasse in bargaining in a multi-employer unit an unusual circumstance justifying unilateral withdrawal?
3. What is an impasse in bargaining?

[Charles D. Bonanno Linen Service, Inc., was a member of the New England Linen Supply Association, a group of 10 employers formed to negotiate with Teamsters Local Union No. 25 as a multiemployer unit. On February 19, 1975, Bonanno authorized the association’s negotiating committee to represent it in the anticipated negotiations for a new contract. The union and the association held 10 bargaining sessions during March and April. On April 30, the negotiators agreed upon a proposed contract, but four days later the union members rejected it. By May 15, the union and the association had reached an impasse over the method of compensation: the union demanded that the drivers be paid on commission, while the association insisted on continuing payment at an hourly rate. Several meetings failed to break the impasse, and on June 23, the union initiated a selective strike against Bonanno. In response, most of the association members locked out their drivers. Despite sporadic meetings, the stalemate continued throughout the summer.

Bonanno hired permanent replacements for all of its striking drivers. On November 21, it notified the association and the union that it was “withdrawing” from the association with respect to negotiations because of the ongoing impasse with Teamsters Local 25. Shortly thereafter, the association ended the lockout and continued multiemployer negotiations. Several negotiating sessions took place between December and April, without Bonanno participating. In the middle of April, the union abandoned its demand for payment on commission and accepted the association’s offer of a revised hourly wage rate. With this development, the parties agreed on a new contract dated April 23, 1976, that was given retroactive effect to April 18, 1975. In a letter dated April 29, the Union informed Bonanno that because the union had never consented to the withdrawal, it considered Bonanno to be bound by the settlement just reached.

The NLRB held that a bargaining impasse did not justify Bonanno’s unilateral withdrawal from the multi-employer unit and that such an attempt was a violation of Sections 8(a)(5) and 8(a)(1) of the NLRA by refusing to execute the collective bargaining agreement later executed by the union and the association. The court of appeals enforced the Board’s order, and the Supreme Court granted certiorari.]