Document: 397 U.S. 99 90 S.Ct. 821 25 L.Ed.2d 146 H. K. PORTER COMPANY, Inc., etc., Petitioner,v.NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD et al. No. 230. Argued Jan. 15, 1970. Decided March 2, Donald C. Winson, Pittsburgh, Pa., for petitioner. Norton J. Come, Washington, D.C., respondent National Labor Relations Board. George Cohen, United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO, by special leave Court. Lawrence M. Chicago. Ill., Chamber Commerce the States, as amicus curiae. Mr. Justice BLACK delivered opinion 1 After an election Union was, on October 5, 1961, certified Board bargaining agent certain employees at Danville, Virginia, plant petitioner, Porter Co. Thereafter negotiations commenced a collective-bargaining agreement. Since that time controversy has seesawed between Board, Court Appeals District Columbia Circuit, and this This delay over eight years is not because case exceedingly complex, but appears to have occurred chiefly skill company's negotiators in taking advantage every opportunity act more noticeable its generality than precise prescriptions. The entire lengthy dispute mainly revolves around union's desire company agree 'check off' dues owed union members, is, deduct those periodically from wage payments employees. record shows, found, objection checkoff was due any general principle or policy against making deductions employees' wages. does charges things like insurance, taxes, contributions charities, some other plants it arrangement dues. evidence court below inconvenience, solely ground 'not going aid comfort union.' Efforts obtain kind compromise request were all met with same staccato response effect collection 'union's business' provide assistance. Based approved finding, refusal bargain about made good faith, done frustrate In May 1966, upheld Board's order requiring cease desist refusing faith directing engage further collective bargaining, if requested do so, checkoff. America v. NLRB, 124 U.S.App.D.C. 143, 363 F.2d 272, cert. denied, Porter, Disston Division-Danville Works N.L.R.B., 385 851, 87 90, 17 80. 2 course opinion, intimated conceivably might required petitioner provision remedy prior bad-faith although enforced did contain such provision. U.S.App.D.C., 146—147, n. 16, F.2d, 275—276, 16. ensuing offered discuss alternative arrangements collecting dues, insisted proposal without modification. Because disagreement proper interpretation court's union, February 1967, filed motion clarification 1966 opinion. denied 22, suggesting contempt proceedings would be avenue testing employer's compliance original order. A institution and, June Regional Director declined prosecute charge, finding employer had 'satisfactorily complied affirmative requirements Order.' App. 111. then reconsideration earlier clarify granted issued new which held circumstances 'checkoff may imposed bad bargaining.' 128 344, 347, 389 295, 298 (1967). remanded July 3, 1968, supplemental '(g)rant contract clause providing dues.' 172 N.L.R.B. 72, 68 N.R.R.M. 1337. affirmed order, 134 227, 414 1123 (1969). We certiorari consider whether these power unfair labor practice check off workers. 396 817, 79, 24 68. For reasons stated we hold while under Act, 61 Stat. 136, amended, require employers negotiate, compel substantive contractual 3 1935 story relations country largely been history governmental regulation process bargaining. year Congress decided disturbances area led undesirable burdens obstructions interstate commerce, passed 49 449. That building Industrial Recovery 48 195 (1933), provided federally protected right join organizations collectively through their chosen representatives issues affecting employment. also created supervise process. empowered investigate disputes any, represented employees, certify appropriate representative designated agent. together authorized make sure fact occur. Without spelling out details, Act refuse bargain. Thus established ensure group could express opinions exert combined influence terms conditions see worked. 4 object allow employment, rather work establish mutually satisfactory conditions. basic theme passions, arguments, struggles channeled into constructive, open discussions leading, hoped, mutual But recognized beginning agreement cases impossible, never intended Government step in, become party impose own views desirable settlement. fundamental limitation abundantly clear legislative reports accompanying Act. Senate Committee Education stated: 5 'The committee wishes dispel possible false impression bill designed agreements permit supervision terms. It must stressed duty carry reach agreement, essence either shall free decide proposals are satisfactory.'1 6 floor consistently reflected understanding.2 7 our Nation's when there considerable legal debate constitutionality law conform business behavior governmentally standards. seriously contended constitutionally recognize his participate setting Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp., 301 1, 57 615, 81 L.Ed. 893 (1937), Court, 5-to-4 decision, within limits constitutional powers passing decision said: 8 whatever. * theory negotiation accredited likely promote industrial peace bring adjustments itself attempt compel.' Id., 45, S.Ct., 628. 9 1947 reviewed experience concluded amendments House report what eventually became Management 1947, referred abovequoted language 10 'Notwithstanding present gone very far, guise determining bargained up judge concessions counterproposals he make. 11 (U)nless writes guides follow, still seek control agreements.'3 12 Accordingly amended provisions defining practices said § 8(d) that: 13 'For purposes section, performance obligation meet reasonable times confer respect wages, hours, question arising thereunder, execution written incorporating reached party, concession.'4 14 discussing amendment, 'clear not, directly indirectly, otherwise sit judgment upon agreements.' American Nat. Ins. Co., 343 395, 404, 72 824, 829, 96 1027 (1952). Later view stating 'it remains prevent controlling settling Insurance Agents' Inter. Union, 361 477, 487, 80 419, 426, 454 (1960). parties instant agreed first 35-year ordered term 15 Recognizing 'that grounded premise freedom contract,' 349, 300, nevertheless presented here properly proposed clause. found based legitimate reason. On basis validity now before us. Where thus revealed repeated refusals issue, ordering 'may only means assuring court, (the employer) no longer harbors illegal intent.' 348, 299. 16 reaching conclusion forbid compelling felt '(s)ection defines relates determination violation scope necessary cure violations already occurred.' matter strict, literal section refers deciding occurred, observation justifies remedial limited considerations enact 8(d). implicit structure acts oversee referee leaving results contest strengths parties. anomalous indeed prohibits relying sole permits dispute. broad, they carrying policies itself.5 One contract. While parties' absolute Act,6 allowing themselves unable violate based—private procedure alone, official compulsion actual relied extensively equally important workers' rights secured. apparently trying effectively destroy considered most demand. Perhaps fearing resort economic combat, maintain further. presently drawn contemplate unions will always secure able achieve even position weak, strikes lockouts result impasse. cannot forbids rely ultimately strength try well true, felt, insufficiently broad cope problems. job Congress, courts, review compulsory submission one side's demands. envision 18 reversed action consistent 19 Reversed remanded. 20 WHITE took part case. 21 MARSHALL consideration 22 HARLAN, concurring. 23 I Court's understanding nothing therein meant disturb primary sustained Appeals, 'good faith,' subjected enforceable citation deems proceeding appropriate. DOUGLAS, whom STEWART concurs, dissenting. correctly describes design main thrust encompass arbitration; best agreement; 'does concession.' 26 Yet power, where 'to take effectuate policies' 10(c) 27 Here reason, cost, not. Nor factor strategy, hoping denial exchange favorable Its reason resolve avoid union. 28 narrow specialized circumstances, answer discretion 'affirmative action' flagrant faith. 29 rare, unique, seldom arise. realize once announced gain momentum warranted exigencies creation. leads demand strategy explains refusal, act. narrowly restricted aimed avoidance Such Hence, opposed view, dissent. S.Rep.No.573, 74th Cong., 1st Sess., (1935). 'Let me say requires sign contract, employee 'Nothing allows Federal agency fix regulate rates pay, limit hours work, govern working condition establishment place 'A crude illustration this: indicates method manner organize, selecting spokesmen, them office door authority negotiate fellow go beyond door. leaves discussion employee, make, voluntary secredness solemnity both should enshrouded.' Remarks Senator Walsh, 79 Cong.Rec. 7659; 9682, 9711. H.R.Rep.No.245, 80th 19—20 (1947). U.S.C. 158(d) (emphasis added). 'If person engaged engaging practice, state findings issue cause served Act).' 160(c). example, choose wants, majority represents minority well. relating deal goods others, 158(e). Various enforcing extent desire. See generally Wellington, Freedom Contract Collective Bargaining Agreement, 112 U.Pa.L.Rev. 467 (1964).

Category: 6