H. K. Porter Co. v. NLRB - 397 U.S. 99, 90 S. Ct. 821 (1970)

Rule:

It is implicit in the entire structure of the National Labor Relations Act that the National Labor Relations Board acts to oversee and referee the process of collective bargaining, leaving the results of the contest to the bargaining strengths of the parties. It would be anomalous indeed to hold that while § 8(d) of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, prohibits the Board from relying on a refusal to agree as the sole evidence of bad-faith bargaining, the Act permits the Board to compel agreement in that same dispute. The Board's remedial powers under § 10 of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, are broad, but they are limited to carrying out the policies of the Act itself. One of these fundamental policies is freedom of contract. While the parties' freedom of contract is not absolute under the Act, allowing the Board to compel agreement when the parties themselves are unable to agree would violate the fundamental premise on which the Act is based: private bargaining under governmental supervision of the procedure alone, without any official compulsion over the actual terms of the contract.

Facts:

Following protracted collective-bargaining negotiations between United Steelworkers Union and  H. K. Porter Co. revolving mainly around the union's desire to have the company "check off" the dues owed to the union by its members, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) made a finding, which the Court of Appeals approved, that the company's refusal to bargain about the checkoff was not made in good faith but solely to frustrate the making of a collective-bargaining agreement. Thereafter the NLRB ordered H. K. Porter to grant the union a contract checkoff clause. The Court of Appeals affirmed the order, concluding that § 8 (d) of the National Labor Relations Act did not forbid the NLRB to compel agreement.

Issue:

Does the NLRB have the power to compel the parties to agree to any substantive contractual provision of a collective-bargaining agreement?

Answer:

No

Conclusion:

The court held that while the NLRB had authority to require employers and employees to negotiate, it was without power to compel either party to agree to any substantive provision of the agreement. While the theme of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, was to channel the hostility of employers and employees and encourage their collaboration in seeking mutually satisfactory working conditions, it was never intended for government to set any terms of employment, the court explained. In confirmation, the court pointed to an amendment to the Act, 29 U.S.C.S. § 158(d), that expressly relieved any party from having to agree to a proposal or make a concession. While the NLRB's remedial powers were broad, the court concluded, they were limited to the same considerations underlying § 158(d).