finding that a collective bargaining agreement granting employees certain benefits under the plan while they were on “union leaves” of absence from the employer fell within the § 186(c)(1) exception
How later courts described this case
- finding that a collective bargaining agreement granting employees certain benefits under the plan while they were on “union leaves” of absence from the employer fell within the § 186(c)(1) exception
- explaining the three general categories of subjects of bargaining under the NLRA: (1) mandatory subjects of bargaining; (2) permissive subjects of bargaining; and (3) illegal subjects of bargaining
- employer provided union with air conditioned office, telephone, use of copier
- "Where the contract violation is also a unilateral change by the employer in working conditions subject to mandatory bargaining ... there can be both a contract violation and a § 8(a)(5) violation.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
E. GRADY JOLLY, Circuit Judge,
specially concurring:
I concur in Judge Williams’ carefully and narrowly written opinion that decides only that the unilateral withdrawal of an established benefit whose nature relates to wages, hours and working conditions is an unfair labor practice. I write specially to express concern, however, that the particular practices in question are probably excessive in relation to their stated purpose. The benefit is estimated to be worth $20,-000 per year. It includes four hours of paid time each day to process slightly more than one grievance per week. It includes a telephone and an airconditioned office that hardly appear necessary to process the few grievances arising on the floor of the plant where the union representative may conveniently visit the workers. In short, the company seems to be paying a substantial part of the union’s administrative expenses. If this is so, then the benefit may exceed in quantum what the union can require the company to bargain over. But, as Judge Williams notes, this is an issue for another day; it is a fact specific question that cannot subsume the issues presented by the unilateral withdrawal of an established benefit that is reasonably related to wages, hours and working conditions. Because Judge Williams has written narrowly, I concur in the conclusion that the company violated section 8(a)(5) of the National Labor Relations Act when it unilaterally withdrew an established benefit.