National Labor Relations Board v. Katz et al.
369 U.S. 736 (1962)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An employer's unilateral change to a mandatory subject of bargaining during ongoing collective bargaining negotiations is a per se violation of the duty to bargain collectively under § 8(a)(5) of the National Labor Relations Act, without the need for an independent finding of subjective bad faith.
Facts:
- On July 5, 1956, the National Labor Relations Board certified Local 66 of the Architectural and Engineering Guild as the collective bargaining representative for the technical employees of Williamsburg Steel Products Company.
- The union requested negotiations with the company, proposing subjects that included merit increases, general wage levels, and a sick-leave policy.
- The company and the union held approximately eleven bargaining meetings between August 1956 and May 1957, where merit raises and sick leave were discussed but no agreement was reached.
- In October 1956 and January 1957, while negotiations were ongoing, Williamsburg Steel unilaterally granted merit increases to numerous employees in the bargaining unit.
- In March 1957, during the negotiation period, the company unilaterally announced a change to its sick-leave policy, reducing the number of annual paid days but increasing the number of days that could be carried over.
- In April 1957, shortly after the union rejected a wage increase proposal, Williamsburg Steel unilaterally instituted a new, more generous system of automatic wage increases than what it had offered the union.
Procedural Posture:
- The union filed an unfair labor practice charge against Williamsburg Steel Products Company with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB).
- The NLRB, acting as the administrative tribunal of first instance, found that the company violated § 8(a)(5) of the NLRA and issued a cease-and-desist order.
- The NLRB petitioned the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit to enforce its order.
- A divided panel of the Court of Appeals, an intermediate federal appellate court, denied enforcement of the Board's order, holding that a violation required a finding of the employer's subjective bad faith, and remanded the case to the Board.
- The U.S. Supreme Court, the nation's highest court, granted certiorari to review the judgment of the Court of Appeals.
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 an employer violate its duty to bargain collectively under § 8(a)(5) of the National Labor Relations Act by unilaterally instituting changes to mandatory subjects of bargaining, such as wages and sick leave, while those subjects are under negotiation with the employees' certified representative, without a specific finding of subjective bad faith?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Brennan
Yes. An employer's unilateral change in conditions of employment under negotiation is a violation of § 8(a)(5) because it is a circumvention of the duty to negotiate which frustrates the objectives of the Act much as does a flat refusal to bargain. The duty to bargain collectively can be violated without a general failure of subjective good faith. A refusal to negotiate in fact on a mandatory subject is a violation, and unilateral action is tantamount to such a refusal. The Court reasoned that such actions undermine the union's authority and obstruct the bargaining process by presenting employees with a fait accompli, regardless of the employer's subjective intent. For example, granting a more generous wage increase than offered to the union is necessarily inconsistent with a sincere desire to conclude an agreement. Similarly, changing sick leave policies or granting discretionary merit raises without consultation bypasses the statutory representative and subverts the core principle of collective bargaining.
Analysis:
This decision establishes the 'unilateral change doctrine,' making it a per se violation of the NLRA for an employer to alter mandatory bargaining subjects during negotiations without first bargaining to an impasse. The ruling shifted the focus from an employer's subjective 'good faith' (a difficult state of mind to prove) to its objective conduct, thereby providing unions with a more powerful tool to enforce the duty to bargain. The Katz doctrine reinforces the union's status as the exclusive representative, preventing employers from undermining the union by making direct changes that appeal to employees. This case remains a cornerstone of labor law, defining a clear boundary for employer conduct during contract negotiations.
Unlock the full brief for National Labor Relations Board v. Katz et al.