NLRB v. Katz

Supreme Court of the United States · 1962 · Labor Law

369 U.S. 736 (1962)

Updated August 1, 2026

Labor Lawunilateral changesNLRA§ 8(a)(5)§ 8(d)duty to bargainmandatory subjectswages

Facts

After the union was certified, it requested bargaining and the parties held multiple negotiating sessions covering merit increases, wage levels and increases, and sick leave. Before negotiations ended and before any impasse existed, the employer, without first notifying or consulting the union, granted merit increases to numerous employees in January 1957, announced changes to its sick-leave plan in March 1957, and instituted a new automatic wage-increase system in April 1957. These matters were mandatory subjects of bargaining and were in fact under discussion at the bargaining sessions. The Board expressly disclaimed any finding that the totality of the employer's conduct showed overall bad faith in the negotiations.

Issue

Whether an employer violates its duty to bargain collectively under NLRA § 8(a)(5) by unilaterally changing mandatory subjects of bargaining that are under negotiation with a certified union, even if the Board does not find overall subjective bad faith in the employer's bargaining conduct.

Rule

A refusal to negotiate in fact over a mandatory subject sought by the union violates § 8(a)(5) regardless of the employer's overall subjective good faith. Likewise, an employer's unilateral change in a condition of employment that is a mandatory subject and is under negotiation is a violation of § 8(a)(5), because it circumvents the duty to bargain and frustrates the bargaining process, unless some excusing or justifying circumstances are present.

🔒

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 Cleveland, Orion Drafting Works began bargaining with a newly certified union over wages, attendance bonuses, and vacation scheduling. Before any agreement or impasse, the company announced on its own that all employees would now receive a monthly attendance bonus under a new formula, without first notifying or consulting the union.

Did the company most likely violate its duty to bargain collectively?

Explanation. The majority held that when a mandatory subject such as wages or comparable compensation is under negotiation, a unilateral employer change before impasse is tantamount to refusing to negotiate in fact about that subject. No separate finding of overall subjective bad faith is required. The rule applies whether employees might view the change as favorable or unfavorable, because the act itself distorts the bargaining process.