Employer and union had an existing collective agreement which provided detailed procedures for adjusting grievances, including arbitration as the final step, and contained a no-strike clause. Disputes arose concerning action taken by the employer affecting working schedules, overtime work, and other conditions of employment without consulting the union; and disciplinary measures were taken against certain employees in pursuance of the new working rules. The union finally called a strike, without filing grievances according to the contract procedure on the disputes which were the immediate causes of the strike. The employer discontinued hearings on two pending grievances and refused to negotiate concerning the causes of the strike, offering, however, to consider them under the regular grievance procedure if the union would end the strike and file grievances on these questions. The union soon agreed to this proposal; but the NLRB had already started proceedings in which it held that the employer was guilty of an unfair labor practice under section 8 (5) of the NLRA for refusing to bargain collectively with the union. On appeal, held, the employer has not been guilty of a refusal to bargain. Timken Roller Bearing Co. v. NLRB, (C.C.A. 6th, 1947) 161 F. (2d) 949.
John F. Buchman S.Ed.,
LABOR LAW - "CHANNELING" THE DUTY TO BARGAIN - EFFECT OF VIOLATION OF "NO-STRIKE" CLAUSE IN EXISTING AGREEMENT,
Mich. L. Rev.
Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr/vol46/iss7/19