Source: https://case-law.vlex.com/vid/369-u-s-736-606603534
Timestamp: 2019-06-25 02:00:27
Document Index: 575942028

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 8', '§ 8', '§ 8', '§ 8', '§ 8', '§ 8', '§ 8', '§ 8', '§ 8']

369 U.S. 736 (1962), 222, Labor Board v. Katz - Federal Cases - Jurisprudencia - VLEX 606603534
369 U.S. 736 (1962), 222, Labor Board v. Katz
Docket Nº: No. 222
Citation: 369 U.S. 736, 82 S.Ct. 1107, 8 L.Ed.2d 230
Party Name: Labor Board v. Katz
369 U.S. 736 (1962)
82 S.Ct. 1107, 8 L.Ed.2d 230
Held: by so doing, the employer violated the duty "to bargain collectively" imposed by § 8(a)(5) of the National Labor Relations Act. Pp. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 745-747.
(f) Labor Board v. Insurance Agents' Union, 361 U.S. 477, distinguished. Pp. 747-748.
It is a violation of the duty "to bargain collectively" imposed by § 8(a)(5) of the National Labor Relations Act1 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?2 The Labor Board answered the question affirmatively in [82 S.Ct. 1109] this case, in a decision which expressly disclaimed any finding that the totality of the respondents' conduct manifested bad faith in the pending negotiations.3 126 N.L.R.B.
288. A divided panel of the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied enforcement of the Board's cease and desist order, finding in our decision in Labor Board v. Insurance Agents' Union, 361 U.S. 477, a broad rule that the statutory duty to bargain cannot be held to be violated, when bargaining is in fact being carried on, without a finding of the respondent's subjective bad faith in negotiating. 289 F.2d 700.4 The Court of Appeals said:
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.
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"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, [82 S.Ct. 1110] general wage levels and increases, and a sick leave proposal.
and represented by the same counsel.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.