NLRB v. Insurance Agents’ Int’l Union
4 L. Ed. 2d 454, 80 S. Ct. 419 (1960)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The use of economic pressure tactics, such as slowdowns and other on-the-job harassment, during collective bargaining negotiations does not, in and of itself, constitute a failure to bargain in good faith under § 8(b)(3) of the National Labor Relations Act.
Facts:
- Since 1949, Prudential Insurance Company of America (Prudential) and the Insurance Agents' International Union (union) had negotiated collective bargaining agreements for district agents.
- In January 1956, the two parties began negotiating a new contract to replace one set to expire in March.
- After the contract expired without a new agreement, the union initiated a 'Work Without a Contract' program to put pressure on Prudential.
- As part of this program, union members engaged in planned, concerted on-the-job activities designed to harass the company.
- These activities included refusing to solicit new business, refusing to comply with reporting procedures, reporting late, holding 'sit-in-mornings,' and picketing company offices.
- Throughout this period, the union continued to meet and confer with Prudential at the bargaining table with the stated desire of reaching an agreement on a new contract.
- A new contract was eventually agreed upon in July 1956, after six months of negotiations and concurrent harassing tactics.
Procedural Posture:
- Prudential Insurance Company of America filed an unfair labor practice charge against the Insurance Agents' International Union with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB).
- The NLRB's General Counsel issued a complaint alleging the union violated § 8(b)(3) of the National Labor Relations Act.
- An NLRB hearing examiner conducted a hearing and recommended that the complaint be dismissed.
- On review, the full NLRB rejected the examiner's recommendation, found the union had engaged in an unfair labor practice, and issued a cease-and-desist order against the union.
- The union petitioned the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to set aside the NLRB's order.
- The Court of Appeals set aside the Board's order.
- The NLRB, as petitioner, successfully sought a writ of certiorari from the U.S. Supreme Court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a union's use of harassing, on-the-job economic pressure tactics during collective bargaining negotiations, by itself, constitute a refusal to bargain in good faith in violation of § 8(b)(3) of the National Labor Relations Act?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Brennan
No. The National Labor Relations Act does not empower the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) to regulate the economic weapons used by parties during collective bargaining. The duty to bargain in good faith under § 8(b)(3) relates to the parties' conduct at the bargaining table and their subjective intent to reach an agreement, not the propriety of economic pressure tactics employed away from it. Congress intended for the parties to have wide latitude in their negotiations, and the use of economic pressure is an integral part of the process. For the Board to brand certain tactics as per se violations of the duty to bargain would be to function as an arbiter of economic weapons and intrude into the substantive aspects of the bargaining process, a role Congress has not countenanced. The fact that an activity is 'unprotected' under the Act—meaning an employer could lawfully discipline employees for it—does not automatically make it an unfair labor practice.
Separate opinion - Justice Frankfurter
No. While I agree with the judgment to set aside the Board's order, the majority's reasoning is overly broad. The Court should not hold that economic pressure is entirely consistent with good faith bargaining. The NLRB should be able to consider disruptive tactics as part of the 'totality of circumstances' when determining if a party genuinely desires to reach an agreement. However, the Board erred in this specific case by establishing a per se rule that such conduct necessarily proves bad faith, without weighing it against other evidence of the union's sincere efforts at the bargaining table. The evidence on this record was insufficient to support the Board's conclusion that the union's bargaining was a mere sham.
Analysis:
This decision establishes a critical distinction between the duty to bargain in good faith and the use of economic weapons to support bargaining positions. It significantly curtails the NLRB's power to regulate the tactics of labor disputes, affirming that the Board cannot act as an 'arbiter of the sort of economic weapons the parties can use.' By finding that even 'unprotected' activities like slowdowns do not inherently constitute bad faith bargaining, the Court preserved a wide range of pressure tactics for both unions and management. This precedent solidifies the principle that the focus of a bad-faith bargaining claim is the subjective intent to reach an agreement at the negotiating table, rather than the nature of the economic conflict occurring outside of it.
Unlock the full brief for NLRB v. Insurance Agents’ Int’l Union