Holding that brevity of parties' negotiations on issue and union's position that it still "had more movement to make" undermine employer's declaration of impasse
Characterizing a proposal as made in bad faith because it "would have permitted [the employer] to unilaterally change working conditions whenever it pleased"
Finding no impasse where “little substantive bargaining had taken place” during the parties' few negotiation sessions and the union had made proposals that “obviously were grist for the collective bargaining mill”
Holding that the employer's conduct effectively derailed contract negotiations, thereby prolonging the economic strike and converting it into an unfair labor practice strike
Holding that company’s decision to transfer and subcontract its parts assembly operation was a mandatory bargaining subject because the transfer did not significantly alter the nature of the company’s business, company incurred no significant capital expenditures, and transfer occurred shortly after company unsuccessfully sought economic concessions from the union
Concluding that union's dismissal of employer's proposals as "ridiculous" or a "slap in the face" did not constitute conclusive evidence of impasse, recognizing that "exaggeration, posturing and dilatory tactics . . . might be expected in labor negotiations"