Document: 343 U.S. 395 72 S.Ct. 824 96 L.Ed. 1027 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARDv.AMERICAN NAT. INS. CO. No. 126. Argued March 4, 1952. Decided May 26, Mr. Mozart G. Ratner, Washington, D.C., for petitioner. Louis J. Dibrell, Galveston, Tex., respondent. Chief Justice VINSON delivered the opinion of Court. 1 This case arises out a complaint that respondent refused to bargain collectively with representatives its employees as required under National Labor Relations Act, amended.1 2 The Office Employees International Union A.F. L., Local 27, certified by Board exclusive bargaining representative respondent's office employees, requested meeting purpose negotiating an agreement governing employment relations. At first meetings, beginning on November 30, 1948, submitted proposed contract covering wages, hours, promotions, vacations and other provisions commonly found in collective agreements, including clause establishing procedure settling grievances arising successive appeals management ultimate resort arbitrator. 3 On January 10, 1949, following recess study Union's proposals, objected calling unlimited arbitration. To meet this objection, so-called functions listing matters such discipline work scheduling responsibility excluding from arbitration.2 took position 'as soon (he) heard (the clause)' would not agree so long it covered subject duty Act. 4 Several further sessions were held without reaching proposal or counterproposal As result, was 'by-passed' terms proposal. 17, stated writing some and, where there disagreement, offered counter-proposals, entitled 'Functions Prerogatives Management' along lines suggested at 10th. portion providing: 5 'The right select hire, promote better position, discharge, demote cause, maintain efficiency determine schedules is recognized both union company proper prerogative be exercised company, while agreed employee feeling himself have been aggrieved any decision respect matters, his behalf, shall reviewed top officials grievance machinery hereinafter set forth, final made reviewable arbitration.' 6 stage negotiations, filed against based charge had Act thereby guilty interfering rights guaranteed Section 7 unfair labor practices Sections 8(a)(1) 8(a)(5) Act.3 While proceeding pending, negotiations between continued remaining obstacle agreement. During established new night shifts introduced system lunch hours consulting Union. 19, second which included containing much language counterproposal, quoted above, vital difference questions arbitration grievances. Finally, 13, 1950, after Trial Examiner issued report but before Board, signed.4 contained rendered nonarbitrable discipline, clause. promotions demotions deleted special union-management committee pass upon promotion matters. 8 these progress, Board's conducted hearings complaint. inclusion contract. However, review entire unilateral action changing working conditions during bargaining, good faith effort reach recommended ordered general 9 bargained But rejected Examiner's views employer's 'constituted, quite (apart from) Respondent's demonstrated bad faith, per se violations (1).' Accordingly, only (par. 2(a)), also order paragraph designed prohibit condition employment. (Par. 1(a)).5 89 N.L.R.B. 185. 10 petition cross-petition enforcement, Court Appeals Fifth Circuit view does preclude employer evidence support failed reason enforcement directed 1(a)) denied. Other portions (pars. 1(b) 2(a)) enforced because finding Cir., 187 F.2d 307. We granted certiorari denial 1(a) order. 342 809, 40. 11 First. industrial peace encouraging making voluntary agreements relations unions employers.6 compel whatsoever employers.7 Nor regulate substantive are incorporated agreement.8 theory encouraged protecting employees' organize imposing mutual obligation collectively. 12 Enforcement crucial statutory scheme. And, has recognized, performance requires more than willingness enter sterile discussion differences. Before enactment 'to negotiate representatives; match their if unacceptable, counter-proposals; make every reasonable agreement.'9 collectively, implicit Wagner Congress, express insertion fifth practice accompanied explanation meaning phrase 'bargain agreement.'10 understanding accepted applied throughout administration Courts Appeal.11 13 In 1947, fear expressed Congress 'has gone very far, guise determining whether employers setting itself up judge what concessions must proposals counter-proposals he may make.'12 Hartley Bill, passed House, eliminated test expressly provided did require submission counter-proposals.13 amended Senate Taft-Hartley retained written into 8(d) That contains provision either party concession.14 14 Thus now apparent statute encourage engage fruitless marathon discussions expense frank statement position. And equally clear not, directly indirectly, otherwise sit judgment agreements. 15 Second. offers apart prescribed demand was, 'per se,' violation 16 Counsel do contend illegal term.15 matter fact, typical clauses collected convenience drafting shows similar essential detail contracts negotiated national many employers.16 War empowered last war '(t)o decide dispute, provide wages all (customarily collective-bargaining agreements)',17 number agreements.18 dissatisfaction exercise functions, others, case, decisions final.19 Without intimating form desirability agreement, manifest common practice. 17 If correct, violates touching regard traditions particular industry fact argument technical one conceded if, instead proposing removed arbitration, simply starts finding, challenged court below respondent,20 least 'conditions employment' appropriate subjects 8(a)(5), 9(a) Act.21 considers retains initial scheduling, 'condition employment,' duration 'in derogation of' employment.22 18 Conceding nothing unlawful permit 'propose' forbid when declines accept proposal, even Ignoring nature takes include fixed standards An permitted content standard agrees freeze Bargaining flexible treatment denied though result contrary industry. disrupt practices. contrary, term collectively' used considered absorb give approval philosophy worked movement United States.' Order Railroad Telegraphers v Railway Express Agency, 1944, 321 342, 346, 64 582, 585, 88 788. 19 should Whether contain fixing issue determination across table, Board. latter approach upon, extent participation settled bargaining. 20 we reject holding se, Any fears entertain use will lead evasion 'rates pay, justify condemning application facts each rather prohibiting altogether. 21 Third. correctly case. It evidence, viewed whole show admitted departure 22 Last plain charged Appeals, Court, normal primary reviewing conclusions 'is place conflict nor reverse find record tilting way other, fair-minded judges could way.' v. Pittsburgh S.S. Co., 1951, 340 498, 503, 71 453, 456, 95 479. repeat reaffirm rule, noting applicability cases where, here, 'good faith' can 23 Accepting it, hold ws refusing properly denied.23 24 Affirmed. 25 MINTON, whom BLACK DOUGLAS join, dissenting: 26 I see how solved telling since 'management functions' valid (which freely admits), replete insisted classify control over certain prerogative, insistence refusal settlement unless clause.1 'steadfast' demand. Therefore, came room topics agenda—that price pay gain There hypothetical envisioned majority waiver coercion. No suggests proposes given accepts return various benefits. tells obtain about conditions, those conditions. semantic waive precedent enjoying rights.2 27 need take Appeals' conclusion no absence faith. Where bargain, inquiry faith.3 absolute Act.4 seems suggest close off discussion. closes or, area whatever closed off, pointless. 28 § declares dispose Certainly lacks power seeking within scope bargaining.5 enforce clear. 29 stake say, 'As bargain.' cut away easily, they indeed illusory. reverse. 49 Stat. 449 (1935), U.S.C. 151 et seq., U.S.C.A. amended, 61 136 (1947), (Supp. IV) seq. drafted session, read: select, promote, demote, sole Company Company's never (R.I. p. 97.) 136, 140—143 (1947): 'Sec. 7. self-organization, form, assist organizations, through own choosing, * *. 8. (a) employer— '(1) interfere with, restrain, coerce section 7; '(5) refuse 9(a). '(d) For purposes section, time confer employment, negotiation question thereunder, execution incorporating reached party, concession: 9. Representatives designated selected unit purposes, rates employment: *.' suggestion moot below. See Mexia Textile Mills, 339 563, 70 826, 833, 94 1067; Pool Mfg. 577, 830, 1077. respondent: '1. Cease desist from: '(a) Refusing Union, A.F.L., Texas, office, guards, secretaries department heads executives, agents, building maintenance professional heads, supervisors defined insisting said whereby Respondent reserves employment; (Paragraph (b) proscribes conduct pertinent issues Court.) '2. Take affirmative finds effectuate policies Act: Upon request, described above *' ('Findings Policies'); Consolidated Edison Co. 1938, 305 197, 236, 59 206, 219, 83 Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp., 1937, 301 1, 45, 57 615, 628, 81 893. Terminal Ass'n St. Trainmen, 1943, 318 6, 63 420, 423, 87 571: like undertake governmental regulation Instead seeks means them. interest Acts primarily such. So far concerned tolerate for. fix authorize anyone generally aplicable Houde Engineering (old) 35 (1934), decided organized 48 1183 (1934). addition 8(5), bill, Senator bill citing note 9, supra. Hearings Committee Education S. 1958, 74th Cong., 1st Sess. 43 (1935). 8(5) inserted Chairmen Houde. Id., 79, 136—137. follows: wishes dispel possible false impression supervision terms. stressed carry essence free satisfactory. 'But, deliberation, concluded bill. guarantee choosing mere delusion correlative part recognize (whether individuals organizations) them bona fide arrive S.Rep.No.573, H. Heinz 1941, 311 514, 320, 85 309. outset. N.L.R.B.Ann.Rep. 85—87 (1936). Cases Appeal approving applying 158, 265. H.R.Rep.No.245, 80th (1947). H.R. 3020, Sess., 2(11) Note 3, 'concession' 'counterproposal' Chairman definition conform understood passage S.Rep.No.105, (1947); House Amendment 3174—3175 H.R.Rep.No.510, 34 put aside Maritime 175 686 (bargaining discriminatory hiring hall clause), violative H.R.Doc.No.125, 81st 3—10 (1949) (U.S.Dept. Bull.No. 908—12); Collective Contracts (B.N.A.1941) 363—368; Classified Provisions Thirty-Seven Agreements Wage Earners Iron Industry (American Inst.1948) 68 73; Tested Clauses (Labor Inst. (1945)), 11—16; Welty, Contract (1945), 76—82; Hoebreckx, Management Handbook 177—182; Smith, Law Materials (1950), 1008—1011; Industrial Research Service Study Management's App.; Pace, Defined (Calif.Inst. Tech.1945); Teller, Functions 427—437 (23 53 examined th author clauses). Writers advocating detailed urge defining respective consistent needs Cox Dunlop, Regulation Harv.L.Rev. 389 (1950); Hill Hook, Table 56—138; 114—116. Separate 'Management's Right Manage' presented members President's Labor-Management conference, 1945, U.S.Dept. Bull.No.77 (1946), 56—62. 163, 166 (1943), Aircraft Lab.Rep. (1944); Mead 471 (1943); Hospital Supply 526 (1943). McQuay-Norris 211 (1945); 29—49. Disputes present Stabilization Basic Industry, L.A. 112 (1952) (recommendation changes rejected), Presidential Emergency Northwest Airlines, Inc., (1946) agreement). Compare East Alton 47 (1942) (arbitration ordered), Atlas Power 371 denied). objections deter ordering deemed Curtiss-Wright 83, 114—115 (1945). erroneous that, law, involve Inland 170 247 (pensions); Allison 165 766 (merit wage increases). Bus Wisconsin 383, 399, 359, 368, 364. seem prevent 'no-strike' clause, requiring forego strike Shell Oil 77 1306 (1948). explained referring 'salutary objective' Bethlehem 341, 345 (1950). Crompton-Highland 337 217, 226—227, 69 960, 964—965, 93 1320. A member 'had considerable thought character our opinion, main- tain management, well safeguard retention prerogatives value worth Company, invulnerable attack. (W)e orally going company. (R. II, 32.) negotiator testified 'Q. Now, understand your testimony, you agree. A. often, once, state something say once once? can't testify times. several 'A. get contract, Article II—A clause.' III, pp. 60—61.) same told 'meat contract' obtained 'short order.' R. 60.) similarly voluntarily disbanding, disband granting increase. Cf. 116 748. exception challenge status request proof status. Joy Silk Mills U.S.App.D.C. 360, 369, 185 732, 741. I. Case 332, 576, 762; 525, 325, Licorice 309 350, 60 569, 575, 84 799; 247, 252; Bachelder, 120 574, 577.

Category: 6