# National Labor Relations Board v. Basf Wyandotte Corp.

> Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · September 2, 1986 · 798 F.2d 849

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9475250

## Case

- **Full name:** NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner, v. BASF WYANDOTTE CORP., Respondent
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
- **Decided:** September 2, 1986
- **Citations:** 798 F.2d 849; 123 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2320; 1986 U.S. App. LEXIS 29243
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Jolly
- **Judges:** Williams, Jolly, Higgin-Botham
- **Cited by:** 26 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9475250

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- 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

## Opinion text

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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9475250. Public record. Not legal advice.