National Labor Relations Board v. Wooster Division of Borg-Warner Corporation
236 F.2d 898 (1956)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An employer's insistence to impasse on a contract proposal that concerns a non-mandatory subject of bargaining, such as the identity of the statutory bargaining representative, constitutes a refusal to bargain in good faith. However, a proposal for a pre-strike secret ballot of all employees is a mandatory subject of bargaining, related to conditions of employment, upon which an employer may lawfully insist to impasse.
Facts:
- The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) certified the International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW-CIO) as the exclusive bargaining representative for employees at the Wooster Division of Borg-Warner Corporation (the Company).
- During subsequent contract negotiations, the Company proposed a contract that recognized the local affiliate, "Local Union 1239," as the bargaining party, rather than the certified International Union.
- The Company also insisted on including a "ballot" clause, which required a secret vote by all employees in the bargaining unit, both union and non-union, on the company's last offer before a strike could be called.
- The Union's representative objected to both clauses, stating the recognition clause violated the NLRB certification and that the Union would not accept the ballot proposal under any circumstances.
- The Company refused to enter into any agreement that did not contain both the recognition and ballot clauses, leading to an impasse in negotiations.
- After failing to reach an agreement, the Union called a strike.
- Following the strike, the Company and the Local Union signed a collective bargaining agreement that contained both of the disputed clauses.
Procedural Posture:
- The International Union filed an unfair labor practice charge against the Company with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB).
- An NLRB Trial Examiner issued an Intermediate Report finding the Company had committed unfair labor practices.
- The NLRB affirmed the Trial Examiner's finding that the Company violated § 8(a)(5) of the NLRA by adamantly insisting on the 'recognition' and 'ballot' clauses as a condition of any agreement.
- The NLRB also held, contrary to the Trial Examiner, that the strike was an economic strike rather than an unfair labor practice strike, and it dismissed the portion of the complaint concerning the reinstatement of certain strikers.
- The NLRB petitioned the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit for enforcement of its order against the Company.
- The International Union petitioned the same court to review and set aside the NLRB's dismissal of the reinstatement claims.
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's insistence, to the point of impasse, on (1) a contract clause requiring a pre-strike secret ballot of all employees, and (2) a clause recognizing the local union rather than the NLRB-certified international union, constitute a refusal to bargain in good faith in violation of the National Labor Relations Act?
Opinions:
Majority - Miller, Circuit Judge.
Partially Yes, Partially No. The company's insistence upon the recognition clause was a refusal to bargain in good faith, but its insistence upon the ballot clause was not. The court bifurcated the analysis of the two disputed clauses. Regarding the ballot clause, the court found it was a mandatory subject of bargaining falling within the category of 'conditions of employment.' The court reasoned that since a general 'no-strike' clause is a mandatory subject, this qualified no-strike proposal should be treated similarly. It was not an unlawful attempt to bypass the union and deal directly with employees, as the proposal was being negotiated with the union itself. However, regarding the recognition clause, the court held it was not a mandatory subject of bargaining. The identity of the bargaining representative is established by statute and NLRB certification under Section 9(a) of the Act and is not a bargainable issue. Therefore, the Company's insistence on substituting the Local for the certified International Union was an unlawful refusal to bargain because it sought to alter the statutory status of the designated representative.
Analysis:
This Sixth Circuit decision attempted to delineate the boundaries of mandatory bargaining by classifying a pre-strike ballot proposal as a mandatory subject while affirming that the identity of the bargaining agent is non-mandatory. By treating the ballot clause as a 'condition of employment' akin to a no-strike clause, the court expanded the scope of issues an employer could lawfully insist upon to impasse. This ruling created a conflict with the NLRB's position that both clauses were permissive subjects, setting the stage for a future Supreme Court clarification on the categories of bargaining subjects (mandatory, permissive, and illegal) and the legal consequences of insisting upon them.
