The UAW-Automakers Labor Dispute and Taft-Hartley’s National Emergency Provisions

October 2, 2023

The UAW-Automakers Labor Dispute and Taft-Hartley’s

National Emergency Provisions

Introduction

On September 22, 2023, union workers at 38 General

Motors and Stellantis parts warehouses in 20 states walked

off their jobs and joined an ongoing strike against the two

automakers and Ford Motor Company. One week earlier,

workers at three factories began to strike after the

International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace, and

Agricultural Implement Workers of America (“United Auto

Workers” or “UAW”) collective bargaining agreements

with the automakers expired without reaching a new deal.

response to union demands. UAW leadership subsequently

rejected the Ford proposal.

On September 15, 2023, union workers at General Motors,

Ford, and Stellantis plants located in Michigan, Missouri,

and Ohio began to strike. On September 22, the strike

expanded to 20 Stellantis parts distribution centers and 18

General Motors centers. On September 29, UAW

announced additional walkouts at a Ford facility and a

General Motors facility.

The Labor Management Relations Act, popularly known as

the Taft-Hartley Act, establishes a framework for

addressing serious labor disputes outside of the rail and air

industries. Although Congress has enacted legislation in the

past to resolve rail labor disputes that are governed by the

Railway Labor Act, it has never intervened in a labor

dispute subject to the Taft-Hartley Act’s national

emergency provisions. (For additional information on

congressional intervention in rail labor disputes, see CRS

Legal Sidebar LSB10861, The Railway Labor Act and

Congressional Action.) This In Focus provides background

on the dispute between the three automakers and the UAW

and explains legally available options for the executive and

legislative branches to intervene in labor disputes governed

by the Taft-Hartley Act.

Legal Framework

Background

• There is “a threatened or actual strike or lockout;”

UAW is a labor union representing approximately 400,000

active workers, including nearly 150,000 workers at the

“Big Three” American car manufactures—Ford, General

Motors, and Stellantis. Prior collective bargaining

agreements between UAW and the automakers were

ratified in 2019, with General Motors reaching an

agreement after a 40-day strike by approximately 48,000

workers. In advance of the agreements expiring on

September 14, 2023, UAW proposed including in the

agreements general 40% wage increases over four years,

cost-of-living adjustments to wages tied to inflation,

enhanced profit sharing, a cap on the use of temporary

workers, and the elimination of the two-tiered

compensation and benefit system. UAW argues that

workers gave up cost-of-living adjustments and accepted

tiered wage and benefits structures in response to the 2008

financial crisis.

On August 31, 2023, the UAW president announced that

the union had filed unfair labor practice charges against

General Motors and Stellantis with the National Labor

Relations Board (NLRB), accusing the companies of

refusing to bargain in good faith. The union reportedly did

not include Ford in the complaint because the company had

participated in negotiations by submitting a proposal in

The National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), enacted in

1935, governs private sector labor-management relations in

the United States outside of the rail and air industries. The

Taft-Hartley Act, enacted in 1947, amended the NLRA to

provide for the settlement of labor disputes. The act also

established the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service

(FMCS), an independent federal agency that attempts to

resolve disputes by providing mediation services to the

parties, and allows for the involvement of the President if

he makes certain determinations about the dispute.

Section 206 of the Taft-Hartley Act, found at 29 U.S.C.

§ 176, authorizes the President to get involved in a labor

dispute if he makes the following determination:

• The strike or lockout affects all or a substantial part of

an industry engaged in “trade, commerce, transportation,

transmission, or communication among the several

States or with foreign nations;” and

• The strike or lockout, if permitted to occur or continue,

would “imperil the national health or safety.”

Upon making such a determination, the President may

appoint a board of inquiry (BOI) that will examine the

issues involved with the labor dispute and issue a written

report. Once the President receives the BOI’s report, he

may direct the Attorney General to petition any federal

district court having jurisdiction over the parties to enjoin

any strike or lockout that may be occurring. The issuance of

an injunction triggers an 80-day “cooling off” period.

During this period, the parties are required to “make every

effort to adjust and settle their differences” with the

assistance of the FMCS.

If there is no agreement within 60 days from the start of the

injunction, the BOI is to report the parties’ current positions

and the employer’s last settlement offer to the President. In

the succeeding 15 days, the NLRB is to conduct a secret

https://crsreports.congress.gov

The UAW-Automakers Labor Dispute and Taft-Hartley’s National Emergency Provisions

ballot to determine whether the employees want to accept

the employer’s last offer. Within five days of the balloting,

the BOI is to certify the results to the Attorney General,

who is to move for the injunction to be discharged. If the

employees have accepted the employer’s final offer, the

dispute is resolved. If the offer has not been accepted,

however, the parties may engage in self-help. After the

injunction is discharged, the President is to submit a “full

and comprehensive” report of the proceedings to Congress

with “such recommendations as he may see fit to make for

consideration and appropriate action.”

Since the enactment of Section 206, Presidents have

intervened in labor disputes on 37 occasions. However, not

all labor disputes have been found by the President to

“imperil the national health or safety.” In 1997, President

Bill Clinton did not intervene in a strike involving the

United Parcel Service, which reportedly handled 80% of all

packages moved by ground transportation in the country at

the time. President Clinton maintained that there must be

“severe damage to the country” before he may intervene

under Section 206. In 1998, President Clinton also declined

to intervene in a labor dispute involving the UAW and

General Motors. Strikes at two General Motors parts plants

reportedly idled approximately 70,000 workers and 90% of

the company’s production. When asked about possible

intervention, President Clinton expressed support for the

“collective bargaining system” and “encourage[d] the

parties to work it out.”

In October 2002, President George W. Bush appointed a

BOI after a labor dispute involving the Pacific Maritime

Association (PMA) and the International Longshore and

Warehouse Union (ILWU) resulted in a lockout. The PMA

represents cargo carriers and terminal operators on the West

Coast, and the ILWU represents longshore workers at

various West Coast ports. The President determined that the

dispute “affect[ed] a substantial part of the maritime

industry, an industry engaged in trade, commerce,

transportation (including the transportation of military

supplies), transmission, and communication among the

several States and with foreign nations[.]” President Bush

found that the lockout, if permitted to continue, would have

imperiled the national health and safety. Following the

issuance of the BOI’s report, the parties reached a tentative

agreement in November 2002.

A BOI has not been appointed since 2002. In 2015, there

was discussion in the Obama Administration about

appointing a BOI after the 2014 expiration of a collective

bargaining agreement between the ILWU and PMA and a

work slowdown at West Coast ports. The parties were able

to negotiate a new agreement with the involvement of thenU.S. Secretary of Labor Thomas Perez without the

President appointing a BOI.

Considerations for Congress

Article I, Section 8, Clause 3, of the U.S. Constitution states

that the Congress shall have power “[t]o regulate

Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several

States, and with the Indian Tribes[.]” In Wilson v. New, the

Supreme Court recognized Congress’s constitutional

authority to intervene in rail labor disputes that threaten to

disrupt interstate commerce. Following a bargaining

impasse and strike threat that would have affected the entire

country, Congress enacted a law that established an eighthour workday and temporarily regulated the wages for rail

carrier employees engaged in interstate and foreign

commerce. The carriers challenged the law, arguing that

Congress lacked the authority to enact it. The Court

determined, however, that Congress’s authority over rail

carriers in interstate commerce was within its legislative

power to regulate commerce and “not subject to dispute.”

The Court maintained that Congress has the ability to

“guard against the cessation of interstate commerce” by

responding legislatively to a failure of employers and

employees to agree on working conditions, such as a wage

standard that was “an essential prerequisite to the

uninterrupted flow of interstate commerce.”

Although Congress has not enacted similar legislation to

resolve a non-rail-labor dispute, New arguably suggests that

this kind of legislation would be permissible if a strike

could disrupt interstate commerce. An extended strike by

autoworkers, according to some observers, would

negatively impact the U.S. economy. Given the threat to

interstate commerce, it seems that Congress may be able to

enact legislation establishing employment conditions for the

relevant employees.

Furthermore, while Congress has not intervened historically

in labor disputes involving BOIs, legislation that would

have amended the Taft-Hartley Act’s national emergency

provisions has been introduced in the past. For example,

during the 114th Congress, some Members introduced the

Protecting Orderly and Responsible Transit of Shipments

Act of 2015 (H.R. 3433/S. 1519) in response to work

slowdowns and lockouts at U.S. ports. The Act would have

allowed a state or territorial governor to appoint a BOI if

the President did not make such an appointment. The bill

would have also allowed for the appointment of a BOI if a

work slowdown occurred that affected “an entire industry

or a substantial part thereof engaged in trade, commerce,

transportation, transmission, or communication among the

several States or with foreign nations.” Also introduced

during the 114th Congress, the Ensuring Continued

Operations and No Other Major Incidents, Closures, or

Slowdowns Act (H.R. 3932) would have directed the

President to appoint a BOI not later than 10 days after “the

U.S. Census Bureau reports that the monthly Import or

Export Vessel Value decreased by 20 percent or more in

any one month from the previous month in any one of the

four metric identification regions,” among other events.

Thus, these pieces of legislation would have allowed a BOI

to be appointed even if there were no threatened or actual

strike or lockout.

Jimmy Balser, Legislative Attorney

Jon O. Shimabukuro, Legislative Attorney

https://crsreports.congress.gov

IF12506

The UAW-Automakers Labor Dispute and Taft-Hartley’s National Emergency Provisions

Disclaimer

This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan shared staff to

congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and under the direction of Congress.

Information in a CRS Report should not be relied upon for purposes other than public understanding of information that has

been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in connection with CRS’s institutional role. CRS Reports, as a work of the

United States Government, are not subject to copyright protection in the United States. Any CRS Report may be

reproduced and distributed in its entirety without permission from CRS. However, as a CRS Report may include

copyrighted images or material from a third party, you may need to obtain the permission of the copyright holder if you

wish to copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.

https://crsreports.congress.gov | IF12506 · VERSION 1 · NEW