NLRB v. Wooster Division of Borg-Warner Corp.

Supreme Court of the United States
2 L. Ed. 2d 823, 78 S. Ct. 718 (1958)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

Parties to collective bargaining must bargain in good faith over mandatory subjects such as wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment, but it is an unfair labor practice for a party to insist to the point of impasse on a permissive subject that falls outside of these mandatory categories.

Facts:

The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) certified the International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, CIO (International) as the exclusive bargaining representative for employees at the Wooster Division of the Borg-Warner Corporation (company).
The International union chartered a local affiliate, Local No. 1239 (Local).
The International and the Local jointly presented a proposed collective bargaining agreement to the company.
In a counterproposal, the company insisted on including two specific clauses before it would agree to any contract.
The first, a 'recognition' clause, would have recognized only the uncertified Local as the party to the contract, excluding the NLRB-certified International union.
The second, a 'ballot' clause, required a pre-strike secret vote among all employees in the bargaining unit (union and non-union) on the company's last offer before the union could legally call a strike.
The company made it clear that no agreement would be reached unless both of these clauses were included, leading to an impasse in negotiations.
After the impasse, the unions initiated a strike, but eventually the Local, upon recommendation of the International, acceded and entered into a contract containing both of the company's insisted-upon clauses.

Procedural Posture:

The International union filed an unfair labor practice charge against the Borg-Warner Corporation with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB).
An NLRB trial examiner found the company committed a per se unfair labor practice by insisting on the 'ballot' and 'recognition' clauses.
The full NLRB, as the administrative body of first instance, adopted the examiner's findings and issued a cease-and-desist order.
The NLRB petitioned the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit for enforcement of its order.
The Court of Appeals, as the intermediate appellate court, enforced the order as to the 'recognition' clause but set it aside as to the 'ballot' clause.
The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari on the NLRB's petition regarding the 'ballot' clause and the company's cross-petition regarding the 'recognition' clause.

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 good-faith insistence on including contract clauses concerning a pre-strike secret ballot of employees and the identity of the union party, which are not subjects of mandatory bargaining, constitute a refusal to bargain in violation of § 8(a)(5) of the National Labor Relations Act?

Opinions:

Majority - Mr. Justice Burton

Yes. An employer's insistence upon matters that are not within the scope of mandatory bargaining under § 8(d) of the National Labor Relations Act constitutes a per se refusal to bargain about the subjects that are within the scope of mandatory bargaining. The duty to bargain is limited to 'wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment.' While parties are free to propose and bargain over other lawful matters (permissive subjects), they may not insist upon them as a condition to any agreement. The 'ballot' clause is a permissive subject as it relates to the internal relationship between employees and their union, not a term of employment, and weakens the independence of the certified representative. The 'recognition' clause is also permissive because it attempts to evade the employer's statutory duty to bargain with the representative certified by the Board. Therefore, the company’s good-faith insistence on these non-mandatory clauses was an unfair labor practice.

Dissenting - Mr. Justice Harlan

No, as to the 'ballot' clause; Yes, as to the 'recognition' clause. While the company's insistence on the 'recognition' clause was an unfair labor practice because it directly contravened the Act's requirement to bargain with the certified representative, its insistence on the 'ballot' clause was not. The Court's distinction between 'proposing' and 'insisting' on a non-mandatory subject is illusory and inhibits the bargaining process. The 'ballot' clause is analogous to a 'no-strike' clause, which is a mandatory subject, and should be considered a permissible subject for good-faith bargaining to the point of insistence. So long as a party bargains in good faith, as the company was found to have done, the Act does not empower the NLRB to prohibit insistence on a lawful contract term, and the Board should not intrude into the substantive aspects of the bargaining process.

Analysis:

This landmark decision established the fundamental tripartite classification of collective bargaining subjects: mandatory, permissive (or voluntary), and illegal. By ruling that a party's insistence on a permissive subject to the point of impasse is a per se violation of the duty to bargain, the Court significantly shaped labor negotiations. This prevents parties from using their economic leverage to force discussions on topics unrelated to the core employment relationship, thereby ensuring that bargaining remains focused on 'wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment.' The decision empowers the NLRB to police the subject matter of bargaining, not just the procedural good faith of the parties, and it remains a cornerstone of American labor law.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: NLRB v. Wooster Division of Borg-Warner Corp. (1958)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"

Premium Feature