Source: cases/29usc158/f3d-930-0509-ingredion.case
Case source: https://www.neochart.com/catalog/cases/f3d/volume_930/0509_01/index.html
Under Board precedent, an employer violates Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act if it "attempt[s] to arm itself for upcoming negotiations" by directly "soliciting the sentiment of the employees on a subject to be discussed at the bargaining table."
Ingredion points to nothing in the record considered as a whole that would cause the court to doubt the reasonableness of the Board's finding.
casedsl 1 case /f3d/930/0509-01 name Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Ingredion Inc. cite 930 F.3d 509 (2019) court Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia date 2019-07-19 url catalog/cases/f3d/volume_930/0509_01/index.html source ir/caselaw/f3d_930.jsonl sha1=bd2d3861ee7eec9e70356aac7cc994c434e90eb0 chars=24021 law 29usc158 (a) role applied posture Review of Board direct-dealing and other bargaining violations; selected issue is management solicitation of employee bargaining preferences. result claimant-won element refusal-to-bargain : satisfied [proved] scope merits variant direct-dealing/soliciting-contract-preferences-outside-union theory direct dealing party Ingredion negotiator Meadows fact @8176..8329 [supports] | He criticized the work schedules and health insurance benefits provided by the existing CBA and asked what the employees hoped to see in a new agreement. fact @8330..8519 [supports] | They expressed interest in a wage raise of 3 to 3.5 percent, an increased pension multiplier, different work schedules, more vacation days, and health insurance coverage for early retirees. rule @7106..7353 | Under Board precedent, an employer violates Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act if it "attempt[s] to arm itself for upcoming negotiations" by directly "soliciting the sentiment of the employees on a subject to be discussed at the bargaining table." held @9628..9770 | Ingredion points to nothing in the record considered as a whole that would cause the court to doubt the reasonableness of the Board's finding. gloss Direct dealing can infringe exclusive representation without a literal refusal to attend bargaining meetings. Only the direct-dealing issue is instantiated here. misfit Section 8(a)(5) and derivative 8(a)(1) liability share the same direct-dealing conduct; two duplicate independent offenses are not inferred. misfit Result is from the perspective of the General Counsel or charging party asserting the employer unfair labor practice, not from the employer-petitioner’s appellate position.