Document: 351 U.S. 149 76 S.Ct. 753 100 L.Ed. 1027 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner,v.TRUITT MANUFACTURING CO. No. 486. Argued March 29, 1956. Decided May 7, Mr. David P. Findling, Washington, D.C., for petitioner. R. D. Douglas, Jr., Greensboro, N.C., respondent. Justice BLACK delivered the opinion of Court. 1 The National Labor Relations Act makes it an unfair labor practice employer to refuse bargain in good faith with representative his employees.1 question presented by this case is whether Board may find that has not bargained where claims cannot afford pay higher wages but refuses requests produce information substantiating its claim. 2 dispute here arose when a union representing certain respondent's employees asked wage increase 10 cents per hour. company answered could such increase, was undercapitalized, had never paid dividends, and more than 1/2 hour would put out business. some evidence these statements, requesting permission have certified public accountant examine company's books, financial data, etc. This request being denied, submit 'full complete respect standing profits,' insisting pertinent essential determine or they should continue press their demand increase. A official testified before trial examiner '(W)e were wanting anything relating Company's position, any records what you, accounting sheets, cost expenditures, not, back position unable give money.' refused all requests, relying solely on statement 'the * discussion declines you information; You no legal right such.' 3 On basis facts found 'failed violation Section 8(a)(5) Act.' 110 N.L.R.B. 856. ordered supply as 'substantiate Respondent's economic inability requested increase.' Court Appeals enforce Board's order, agreeing respondent be held guilty because refusal furnish union. 4 Cir., 224 F.2d 869. In v. Jacobs Mfg. Co., 196 680, Second Circuit upheld finding bad-faith bargaining based employer's under circumstances similar those here. Because conflict importance we granted certiorari. 350 922, 211. raised objection order ground scope required too broad disclosure undue burden company. Its major argument throughout been irrelevant process related matters exclusively within province management. Thus lay one side suggestion might unduly burdensome injurious event, heretofore taken cases 'It sufficient if made available manner so timeconsuming impede bargaining.'2 And substantiation requires 'reasonable proof.' 5 We think determining obligation good-faith met consider about status. While Congress did compel agreement between employers representatives, require collective hope agreements result. 204(a) (1) admonishes both 'exert every reasonable effort make maintain concerning rates pay, hours, working conditions *.'3 reach treated ability increased highly relevant. without injury business commonly considered factor negotiations.4 Claims sometimes abandoned unsatisfactory condition; even voted accept decreases conditions.5 6 Good-faith necessarily either bargainer honest claims. true asserted wages. If important enough present take bargaining, sort proof accuracy. certainly farfetched trier fact conclusion lacks mechanically repeats claim making slightest substantiate Such holding since shortly after passage Wagner Act. Pioneer Pearl Button decided 1936, relied 'poof condition,' said: 'He refuge assertion condition poor; he prove statement, permit independent verification. bargaining. 837, 842—843. Taft-Hartley passed 1947 ever since.6 agree attempt support failure faith. 7 concluded failing see reason disturb findings Board. do hold, however, which against automatically follows are entitled evidence. Each must turn upon particular facts.7 inquiry always statutory met. Since conclude there record faith, error set aside deny enforcement. 8 Reversed. 9 FRANKFURTER, whom CLARK HARLAN join, concurring part dissenting part. involves nature duty imposes unions. 'an collectively representatives employees,' § 8(b)(3) places like vis-a -vis employer. 8(d) provides 'to performance mutual meet at times confer wages, other terms employment, negotiation agreement, arising thereunder, execution written contract incorporating reached party, does party proposal concession *.' 61 Stat. 142, 29 U.S.C. 158(d), U.S.C.A. 158(d). 11 These sections obligate parties come terms; try 'Good faith' means merely going through motions negotiating; inconsistent predetermined resolve budge from initial position. But incompatible stubbornness outsider seem unreasonableness. determination want normally can rest only inference less persuasive manifestations another's state mind. previous relations parties, antecedent events explaining behavior table, course negotiations constitute raw reaching determination. appropriate inferences drawn often confused tangled testimony absence judgment Board, unless whole leaves foundation. See Universal Camera Corp. 340 474, 71 456, 95 456. 12 An examination counsel disclose conceive issue goof-faith case. totality conduct apparently deemed question; alone disposed '(I)t settled law (the concluded), seeks justify basis, Respondent herein, 13 rule item—even weighty item—of There warrant this. authority 680. That very different situation. Company engaged 8(a)(5). agreed light open 'books sales records' perusal recalcitrant consideration establishing faith.1 founded refusal, court's principal concern enforced respect. court sustained requirement 'will produces whatever relevant indicate comply Union's demands.' 684. far cry indeed ruling books establishes lack Once wanting, relief given largely administrative discretion. Neither nor appeals' decision called our attention supports fashioned thread fabric 14 itself approached 'good mechanical fashion. Southern Saddlery 90 1205, also violated. how differently function. 15 'Bargaining sides enter into discussions fair mind sincere purpose touching hours labor. applying definition situation, examines clear indication latter usually rely conclusive genuinely agreement.' 1206. 16 factors counter-proposals efforts 'compromise controversy.' Compare, McLean-Arkansas Lumber Inc., 109 1022. specific indispensable, study mood indicative bargain. decide. It inference-drawing, ultra vires law-making 17 applied wrong standard here, Truitt's constituted se returned substantial indicates Truitt tried agreement. offered 1/2-cent expressed willingness discuss 'at time problem compare competition,' continued controversy 18 matter law, way other, I join Court's disposition To reverse remanding further proceedings, implies same one. forecast. return apply faith.' 'Sec. 8. (a) shall employer— '(5) employees, subject provisions section 9(a). '(d) For purposes section, 49 452—453, amended, 140—142, §§ 158(a)(5), (d). Old Line Life Ins. 96 499, 503; Cincinnati Steel Castings 86 592, 593. 154, 174(a)(1), 174(a)(1). Sherman, Employer's Obligation Produce Data Collective Bargaining, 35 Minn.L.Rev. 24; Dunlop, Economics Wage-Dispute Settlement, Law & Contemp. Prob. 281, 290; What Kind Information Do Unions Want Financial Statements?, 87 J. Accountancy 368; How Bargaining Works (Twentieth Century Fund, 1942) 453. Daily Report 156: A4—A5 (Bureau Affairs, Aug. 12, 1954); Lab.Rel.Rep. 106; Union Votes Wage Freeze Aid Rice-Stix, St. Louis Globe-Democrat, Nov. 25, 1954, p. 1, col. 4; Studebaker Men Vote Pay Cuts, N.Y. Times, 13, 5. See, e.g., N.L.R.B 1206 1207; 1022, 1035—1038; Manufacturing 94 1214, 1221—1222, enforced, 680; therein cited. American Nat. 343 395, 409—410, 72 824, 832, 1027. 'The contends second meeting issues fully explored expressed. Whether true, adversely meetings took increases futile financially them, subjects all, justified concluding requires. compliance statute virtual insistence prejudgment discussion.' page 683.

Category: 6