Opinion ID: 178801
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Dues Check-Off

Text: EPD claims that the district court erred by ordering it to adopt the Union's proposed Dues-Check off provision. The court's order states: [EPD] 1. Enjoined and Restrained from: . . . (b) Engaging in bad-faith bargaining, including engaged in dilatory tactics regarding the scheduling of bargaining sessions, failing and refusing to meet regularly with the Union at reasonable intervals, unreasonably limiting the duration of negotiating sessions, failing to designated an agent with sufficient bargaining authority, refusing to accede to a Dues Check-Off provision, and presenting premature final offers to the Union: .... EPD is correct that the Board cannot remedy bad faith bargaining by compelling a party to change its position or agree to a specific proposal. [44] And, the Board concedes that the district court may not order a party to agree to a bargaining proposal. In this context, the order's use of accede creates a requirement that EPD accept the Dues Check-Off provision offered by the Union, which is beyond the power of the district court to require. It is likely that the district court merely copied the ALJ's draft of the proposed orderwhich included the same languagewithout closely considering the implications of using the word accede in this context. We assume that the court intended to enjoin EPD from continuing to refuse to negotiate the Dues Check-Off provision, which is within the powers of the district court and the Board to compel. Therefore, we modify the court's injunction [45] by replacing accede to with negotiate, and we affirm the injunction as thus modified.