H. K. Porter Co. v. National Labor Relations Board

Supreme Court of the United States · 1970 · Labor Law

Labor LawCollective BargainingNLRB RemediesGood-Faith BargainingNLRALMRASection 8(d)Section 10(c)

Facts

After the union was certified as bargaining representative for employees at petitioner's Danville plant, the parties negotiated for a collective-bargaining agreement. The Board found, and the Court of Appeals approved, that the company's refusal to bargain about a dues-checkoff provision was not based on inconvenience or policy but solely on a desire not to "aid and comfort the union" and to frustrate agreement. The Court of Appeals had previously enforced an order requiring the company to bargain in good faith over checkoff, but later stated that a checkoff could in some circumstances be imposed as a remedy for bad-faith bargaining. On remand, the Board ordered the company to grant the union a checkoff clause.

Issue

Whether the National Labor Relations Board, after finding that an employer bargained in bad faith over a dues-checkoff proposal, may remedy that unfair labor practice by ordering the employer to agree to a checkoff provision in the collective-bargaining agreement.

Rule

Under the National Labor Relations Act, the Board has power to require employers and unions to meet and bargain in good faith, but it does not have power to compel either party to agree to a proposal, make a concession, or accept any substantive term of a collective-bargaining agreement. The Board's remedial authority under § 10 is broad but limited by the Act's policy of leaving contract terms to private bargaining rather than governmental imposition.

🔒

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.

In Toledo, Ohio, Mason Toolworks and Local 184 bargained for a first contract. The Board found that Mason refused in bad faith to discuss the union’s proposal for binding grievance arbitration, not because of any business concern, but solely to stall negotiations and prevent an agreement.

Which remedy is most consistent with the governing rule?

Explanation. The Board may require the parties to meet and bargain in good faith, but it may not compel either party to agree to a substantive term of a collective-bargaining agreement. Even when bad-faith bargaining is established, the Act leaves substantive outcomes to private bargaining rather than governmental imposition. (Derived from H. K. Porter Co. v. National Labor Relations Board (n.d.).)