Source: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/369/736/
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 22:51:02+00:00

Document:
While bona fide contract negotiations with a union representing its employees were being carried on, the employer, unilaterally and without first consulting the union, put into effect a new system of automatic wage increases, changes in sick leave benefits, and numerous merit increases, although such matters were subjects of the pending contract negotiations.
Held: by so doing, the employer violated the duty "to bargain collectively" imposed by § 8(a)(5) of the National Labor Relations Act. Pp. 369 U. S. 737-748.
(a) On the record in this case, the Labor Board was justified in finding that the employer's unilateral action was taken before the contract negotiations were discontinued, and before the existence of any possible impasse. Pp. 369 U. S. 741-742.
(b) Even in the absence of a finding of over-all subjective bad faith, an employer's unilateral change in conditions of employment under negotiation violates § 8(a)(5), for it is a circumvention of the duty to negotiate which frustrates the objectives of § 8(a)(5) as much as would a flat refusal to negotiate. Pp. 369 U. S. 742-743.
(c) The unilateral changes in sick leave benefits plainly frustrated the statutory objective of establishing working conditions through collective bargaining and violated § 8(a)(5). P. 369 U. S. 744.
(d) The employer's grant of wage increases greater than any he had ever offered the union at the bargaining table was necessarily inconsistent with a sincere desire to conclude an agreement with the union, and it violated § 8(a)(5). Pp. 369 U. S. 744-745.
(e) The employer's unilateral action in granting discretionary merit increases to 20 employees was tantamount to an outright refusal to negotiate on that subject, and it violated § 8(a)(5). Pp. 369 U. S. 745-747.
(f) Labor Board v. Insurance Agents' Union, 361 U. S. 477, distinguished. Pp. 369 U. S. 747-748.
It is a violation of the duty "to bargain collectively" imposed by § 8(a)(5) of the National Labor Relations Act [Footnote 1] for an employer, without first consulting a union with which it is carrying on bona fide contract negotiations, to institute changes regarding matters which are subjects of mandatory bargaining under § 8(d) and which are in fact under discussion? [Footnote 2] The Labor Board answered the question affirmatively in this case, in a decision which expressly disclaimed any finding that the totality of the respondents' conduct manifested bad faith in the pending negotiations. [Footnote 3] 126 N.L.R.B.
"We are of the opinion that the unilateral acts here complained of, occurring as they did during the negotiating of a collective bargaining agreement, do not per se constitute a refusal to bargain collectively and per se are not violative of § 8(a)(5). While the subject is not generally free from doubt, it is our conclusion that, in the posture of this case, a necessary requisite of a Section 8(a)(5) violation is a finding that the employer failed to bargain in good faith."
the Court of Appeals erred in refusing to enforce the Board's order.
The respondents are partners engaged in steel fabricating under the firm name of Williamsburg Steel Products Company. Following a consent election in a unit consisting of all technical employees at the company's plant, the Board, on July 5, 1956, certified as their collective bargaining representative Local 66 of the Architectural and Engineering Guild, American Federation of Technical Engineers, AFL-CIO. The Board simultaneously certified the union as representative of similar units at five other companies which, with the respondent company, were members of the Hollow Metal Door & Buck Association. The certifications related to separate units at the several plants, and did not purport to establish a multi-employer bargaining unit.
On July 11, 1956, the union sent identical letters to each of the six companies, requesting collective bargaining. Negotiations were invited on either an individual or "association-wide" [Footnote 5] basis, with the reservation that wage rates and increases would have to be discussed with each employer separately. A follow-up letter of July 19, 1956, repeated the request for contract negotiations and enumerated proposed subjects for discussion. Included were merit increases, general wage levels and increases, and a sick leave proposal.
and represented by the same counsel. [Footnote 6] It is undisputed that the subject of merit increases was raised at the August 30, 1956, meeting although there is an unresolved conflict as to whether an agreement was reached on joint participation by the company and the union in merit reviews, or whether the subject was simply mentioned and put off for discussion at a later date. It is also clear that proposals concerning sick leave were made. Several meetings were held during October, and one in November, at which merit raises and sick leave were each discussed on at least two occasions. It appears, however, that little progress was made.
On December 5, a meeting was held at the New York State Mediation Board attended by a mediator of that agency, who was at that time mediating a contract negotiation between the union and Aetna Steel Products Corporation, a member of the Association bargaining separately from the others, and a decision was reached to recess the negotiations involved here pending the results of the Aetna negotiation. When the mediator called the next meeting on March 29, 1957, the completed Aetna contract was introduced into the discussion. At a resumption of bargaining on April 4, the company, along with the other employers, offered a three-year agreement with certain initial and prospective automatic wage increases. The offer was rejected. Further meetings with the mediator on April 11, May 1, and May 13, 1957, produced no agreement, and no further meetings were held.
actions before negotiations were discontinued in May, 1957, or before, as we find on the record, the existence of any possible impasse."
"Although we might . . . be justified in denying enforcement without remand, . . . since the Board's finding of an unfair labor practice impliedly proceeds from an erroneous view that specific unilateral acts, regardless of bad faith, may constitute violations of § 8(a)(5), the case should be remanded to the Board in order that it may have an opportunity to take additional evidence, and make such findings as may be warranted by the record."
We consider first the matter of sick leave. A sick leave plan had been in effect since May, 1956, under which employees were allowed ten paid sick leave days annually, and could accumulate half the unused days, or up to five days each year. Changes in the plan were sought, and proposals and counterproposals had come up at three bargaining conferences. In March, 1957, the company, without first notifying or consulting the union, announced changes in the plan, which reduced from ten to five the number of paid sick leave days per year but allowed accumulation of twice the unused days, thus increasing to ten the number of days which might be carried over. This action plainly frustrated the statutory objective of establishing working conditions through bargaining. Some employees might view the change to be a diminution of benefits. Others, more interested in accumulating sick leave days, might regard the change as an improvement. If one view or the other clearly prevailed among the employees, the unilateral action might well mean that the employer had either uselessly dissipated trading material or aggravated the sick leave issue. On the other hand, if the employees were more evenly divided on the merits of the company's changes, the union negotiators, beset by conflicting factions, might be led to adopt a protective vagueness on the issue of sick leave, which also would inhibit the useful discussion contemplated by Congress in imposing the specific obligation to bargain collectively.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the case is remanded with direction to the court to enforce the Board's order.
"It shall be an unfair labor practice for an employer . . . to refuse to bargain collectively with the representatives of his employees, subject to the provisions of section 159(a) of this title."
"For the purposes of this section, to bargain collectively is the performance of the mutual obligation of the employer and the representative of the employees to meet at reasonable times and confer in good faith with respect to wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment. . . ."
See Labor Board v. Wooster Borg-Warner Corp., 356 U. S. 342, 356 U. S. 348-349.
"1. Cease and desist from:"
"(a) Unilaterally changing wages, rates of pay, or sick leave, or granting merit increases, or in any similar or related manner refusing to bargain collectively with Architectural and Engineering Guild, Local 66, American Federation of Technical Engineers, AFL-CIO. . . ."
"(b) Refusing to bargain collectively concerning rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other conditions of employment with the Union. . . ."
By their references to "association-wide bargaining," the parties appear to mean negotiations at which the six members of the Association for whose employees the union had received certifications on July 5, 1956, would be concurrently represented.
On one occasion in November, 1956, a representative of the company conferred individually with the union about job classifications.
Particularizations of this charge are that the union adamantly insisted that the employers agree to a contract identical with that entered into by Aetna because the Aetna agreement contained a "most favored nation" clause; that the union evasively vacillated between insistence on individual and group negotiations; and that the conduct of negotiations by the union created unrest impairing the efficiency of the company's operations and causing valued employees to quit.
The Board found as a fact that the introduction of the Aetna agreement did not create any impasse, at least until after the unilateral actions here in issue. The Board adopted the Examiner's finding that the company, and not the union, was responsible for any confusion over individual, as opposed to association-wide, bargaining. The unrest seems to have been a concomitant of the assertion by the employees of their rights to organize and negotiate a collective agreement, and could not justify a refusal of the company to bargain, at least in the absence of conduct of the union which amounted to an unfair labor practice.
The Examiner rejected the company's offer to prove union-instigated slowdowns. But such proof would not have justified the company's refusal to bargain. Since, as we held in Labor Board v. Insurance Agents' Union, 361 U. S. 477, the Board may not brand partial strike activity as illegitimate and forbid its use in support of bargaining, an employer cannot be free to refuse to negotiate when the union resorts to such tactics. Engaging in partial strikes is not inherently inconsistent with a continued willingness to negotiate; and, as long as there is such willingness and no impasse has developed, the employer's obligation continues.
The Board had also found the company's actions violative of § 8(a)(1), 49 Stat. 452, as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 158(a)(1), but the Court of Appeals held that those findings were merely derivative of the Board's conclusions regarding § 8(a)(5), and so rejected them. We need not consider this question, because the Board's order presents no separate issue as to § 8(a)(1). It requires the company to cease and desist from refusing to bargain collectively, and to bargain collectively on request. It imposes no broader obligation either in the language of, or by reference to, § 8(a)(1).
See, e.g., Labor Board v. J. H. Allison & Co., 165 F.2d 766.
Compare Medo Photo Supply Corp. v. Labor Board, 321 U. S. 678; May Department Stores v. Labor Board, 326 U. S. 376; Labor Board v. Crompton-Highland Mills, 337 U. S. 217.
May held that the employer violated § 8(1) when, after having unequivocally refused to bargain with a certified union on the ground that the unit was inappropriate, it announced that it had applied to the War Labor Board for permission to grant a wage increase to all its employees except those whose wages had been fixed by "closed shop agreements."
Crompton-Highland Mills sustained the Board's conclusion that the employer's unilateral grant of a wage increase substantially greater than any it had offered to the union during negotiations which had ended in impasse clearly manifested bad faith and violated the employer's duty to bargain.
Of course, there is no resemblance between this situation and one wherein an employer, after notice and consultation, "unilaterally" institutes a wage increase identical with one which the union has rejected as too low. See Labor Board v. Bradley Washfountain Co., 192 F.2d 144, 150-152; Labor Board v. Landis Tool Co., 193 F.2d 279.
"no complaint shall issue based upon any unfair labor practice occurring more than six months prior to the filing of the charge with the Board. . . ."
Therefore, we disregard the October, 1956, increases as independently constituting an unfair labor practice. Nor do we find it necessary to decide whether they may be considered as evidence in connection with the Board's suggestion that the merit increases of October, 1956, and January, 1957, should be viewed as together amounting to a general wage increase.
See Armstrong Cork Co. v. Labor Board, 211 F.2d 843, 847; Labor Board v. Dealers Engine Rebuilders, Inc., 199 F.2d 249. Compare the isolated individual wage adjustments held not to be unfair labor practices in Labor Board v. Superior Fireproof Door & Sash Co., 289 F.2d 713, 720, and White v. Labor Board, 255 F.2d 564, 565.
The Court expressly left open the question which would be raised by a union's attempt to impose new working conditions unilaterally. 361 U.S. at 361 U. S. 496-497, n. 28.
The company urges that, because of the lapse of time between the occurrence of the unfair labor practices and the Board's final decision and order, and because the union was repudiated by the employees subsequently to the events recounted in this opinion, enforcement should be either denied altogether or conditioned on the holding of a new election to determine whether the union is still the employees' choice as a bargaining representative. The argument has no merit. Franks Bros. Co. v. Labor Board, 321 U. S. 702; Labor Board v. P. Lorillard Co., 314 U. S. 512; Labor Board v. Mexia Textile Mills, Inc., 339 U. S. 563, 339 U. S. 568. Inordinate delay in any case is regrettable, but Congress has introduced no time limitation into the Act except that in § 10(b).

References: § 8
 § 8
 § 8
 § 8
 § 8
 § 8
 v. 
 § 8
 § 8
 § 8
 § 8
 v. 
 v. 
 § 8
 § 158
 § 8
 § 8
 § 8
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 8
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 10