Ford Motor Co. v. NLRB

Supreme Court of the United States · 1979 · Labor Law

Labor LawCollective BargainingMandatory Subjects of BargainingTerms and Conditions of EmploymentNLRAsection 8(a)(5)section 8(d)mandatory bargaining

Facts

Ford operated a stamping plant with 3,600 hourly employees represented by the union and provided in-plant cafeteria and vending machine food services through an independent caterer, ARA. Under Ford's contract with ARA, Ford could review and approve the quality, quantity, and price of food, and Ford also subsidized deficits up to a stated amount. The parties had long bargained over nonprice aspects of food services, but Ford consistently refused to bargain over food prices. When Ford announced a price increase, the union requested bargaining over prices and services and requested relevant information, and Ford refused on the ground that food prices and services were not terms and conditions of employment.

Issue

Are prices and nonprice aspects of existing in-plant cafeteria and vending machine food services "terms and conditions of employment" under NLRA § 8(d), making them mandatory subjects of collective bargaining under § 8(a)(5)? Also, may an employer refuse bargaining on the ground that the food is supplied by an outside contractor?

Rule

Under NLRA §§ 8(a)(5) and 8(d), existing in-plant food prices and food services may be treated as mandatory subjects of bargaining because they are terms and conditions of employment germane to the working environment. The Board's construction of "other terms and conditions of employment" is entitled to considerable deference and should be upheld if reasonably defensible. The "vitally affects" standard from Pittsburgh Plate Glass applies to matters involving third parties outside the employment relationship, not to aspects of the relationship between an employer and its own employees such as in-plant food prices and services.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Granite Works, LLC runs a parts plant in Toledo, Ohio, where employees buy meals from an on-site cafeteria operated by a contractor. The employer can approve menu prices and quality standards, but after the union demanded bargaining over a planned price increase, Granite Works refused, arguing that courts should independently decide whether cafeteria prices are a mandatory bargaining subject.

If the NLRB concludes that the existing on-site cafeteria's prices and service are mandatory subjects of bargaining, how should a reviewing court assess that determination?

Explanation. The majority held that Congress left the Board primary responsibility to mark out the scope of § 8(d)'s phrase "other terms and conditions of employment." Because classification of bargaining subjects is within the Board's expertise, courts owe considerable deference and should uphold the Board's construction if it is reasonably defensible and not inconsistent with the Act or an attempt to regulate a domain not committed to the Board.