NLRB v. Wooster Division of Borg-Warner Corp.

Supreme Court of the United States · 1958 · Labor Law

356 U.S. 342 (1958)

Updated August 1, 2026

Labor Lawmandatory vs. permissive subjectsNLRASection 8(a)(5)Section 8(d)mandatory subjectspermissive subjectsinsistence to impasse

Facts

After the Board certified the International Union as the employees' exclusive bargaining representative, the employer proposed a contract that instead recognized only the uncertified local affiliate and excluded the certified International as a party. The employer also proposed a ballot clause requiring a pre-strike secret vote of all unit employees on the employer's last offer before the union could strike on nonarbitrable issues. The unions made clear they would not accept either clause, while the employer made clear it would enter no agreement unless both clauses were included. After a strike and continued bargaining, the employer persisted in its package proposal containing both clauses, and the agreement was ultimately signed with both included.

Issue

Whether the employer's insistence, as a condition of any agreement, on a pre-strike ballot clause and a recognition clause excluding the certified International concerned mandatory subjects of bargaining within § 8(d). If not, the further question was whether insisting on those clauses amounted to a refusal to bargain in violation of § 8(a)(5).

Rule

Under NLRA §§ 8(a)(5) and 8(d), parties must bargain in good faith over wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment, and within that area neither side must yield. As to matters outside that mandatory scope, each side is free to propose them and agree to them voluntarily, but a party may not insist on such a nonmandatory subject as a condition precedent to any agreement; doing so is in substance a refusal to bargain over mandatory subjects.

🔒

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, a certified union is bargaining with Riverbend Foundry. The employer proposes a clause requiring all unit employees to cast a secret advisory vote on the employer's final offer before the union may call a strike over nonarbitrable issues, and the employer states it will sign no contract without that clause.

If the union refuses the clause and negotiations reach impasse on that point, what is the strongest conclusion?

Explanation. Under the majority opinion, a proposal requiring an internal employee vote before the representative may strike or reject a final offer is not a term or condition of employment. It deals with relations between employees and their union, not employer-employee terms, and is therefore a nonmandatory subject. Although such a clause is lawful if voluntarily accepted, insisting on it as a condition precedent to any agreement is in substance a refusal to bargain over mandatory subjects and violates § 8(a)(5).