Court Opinion

ID: 9446185
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-03 21:48:51.171143+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:30:33.809254
License: Public Domain

On Petition for Rehearing.
PER CURIAM.
In its motion for rehearing the Board takes exception to our statement in the opinion referring to merit increases to five of the sixty employes: “These were not such general increases as were criticized in N.L.R.B. v. Crompton-Highland Mills [337 U.S. 217, 69 S.Ct. 960, 93 L.Ed. 1320].” The Board states: “With all deference, we respectfully submit that the Court erred in thus holding that an employer may grant individual merit increases without first negotiating with the statutory bargaining representative.”
Lest there be a misunderstanding, we state that we did not intend to, and did not, “thus hold.” We found that these particular increases were in line with company policy to make merit increases, they had all accrued before bargaining sessions commenced, and on the record as a whole they did not amount to violations of either Section 8(a) (1) or Section 8(a) (3), of the Act. We contrasted this situation to that where there were general increases in the cases cited by general counsel in his brief.
The motion for rehearing is denied.