OR · 29usc158:refusal-to-bargain
Includes the direct-dealing variant as described by the D.C. Circuit; the §8(d) duty does not compel substantive concession.
Exact element source
to refuse to bargain collectivelySource:
docroot/ir/usc/title29.jsonl#title29_sec158; Unicode character offsets [2534:2567] (end exclusive); SHA-256 caadb20cedf4fd4e200812fc0ec46617cc7978ef7a6b0a30e355bccfeb7e0d06.Routes and case patterns
| Route | Definition | Merits instance blocks | Distinct merits cases | Examples (up to 3 cases per count group) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| _procedural accepted; provisional (1 case) | The element is only the occasion for a procedural ruling. | 0 Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 1 | 0 | Used only in non-merits blocks (1). Excluded context examples:Watson v. Moeller Rubber Products, Inc. — 792 F. Supp. 1459 (1992) · United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi · 1992 — not reached · basis not recorded (29usc158: author: Astra4 · QA: PASS (QA2, neov2/qa/wave2-cases-QA2-crosscheck.md)) · background/procedural · not counted |
| direct-dealing provisional; provisional (1 case) | Whether the employer bypassed the union and dealt with employees directly. | 1 Satisfied 1; not satisfied 0; excluded context 0 | 1 | Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Ingredion Inc. — 930 F.3d 509 (2019) · Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia · 2019 — satisfied · proved (29usc158: author: Astra4 · not independently reviewed) · applied/merits · counted |
| information-request provisional; 2 observed cases | Whether the employer unlawfully refused relevant information. | 2 Satisfied 2; not satisfied 0; excluded context 0 | 2 | National Labor Relations Board v. United States Postal Service — 841 F.2d 141 (1988) · United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1988 — satisfied · law (29usc158: author: Astra4 · not independently reviewed) · applied/merits · counted Directsat U.S. LLC v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. — 925 F.3d 1272 (2019) · Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia · 2019 — satisfied · proved (29usc158: author: Flash3 · QA: PASS (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) · applied/merits · counted |
| surface-bargaining provisional; provisional (1 case) | Whether the employer's proposals and conduct show no intent to reach agreement. | 1 Satisfied 1; not satisfied 0; excluded context 0 | 1 | District Hospital Partners, L.P. v. NLRB — 141 F.4th 1279 (2025) · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 2025 — satisfied · proved (29usc158: author: Astra4 · not independently reviewed) · applied/merits · counted |
| unilateral-change provisional; provisional (1 case) | Whether the employer changed terms and conditions unilaterally without bargaining to a valid impasse. | 2 Satisfied 1; not satisfied 1; excluded context 0 | 1 | Firstenergy Generation, LLC v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. — 929 F.3d 321 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2019 — not · law (29usc158: author: Flash3 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) · applied/merits · counted Firstenergy Generation, LLC v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. — 929 F.3d 321 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2019 — satisfied · proved (29usc158: author: Flash3 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) · applied/merits · counted |
How courts decided this element
| Case | Element | Holding and scope | Pattern | Exact source quotations |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Watson v. Moeller Rubber Products, Inc. — 792 F. Supp. 1459 (1992) · United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi · 1992 — not reached (29usc158: author: Astra4 · QA: PASS (QA2, neov2/qa/wave2-cases-QA2-crosscheck.md)) | Alternative breaches of applicable collective-bargaining duties | not_reached Excluded from merits counts background / procedural claim: (a); theory: section 10(j) interim bargaining; subject: theory=section 10(j) interim bargaining The court orders temporary bargaining, not a final ULP finding. Its 1992 reasonable-cause approach is historical; no present injunction-standard claim is made. | interim-relief/successor-recognition-dispute | On September 16, Union Staff Representative Rip Williamson responded to this letter with a request that Moeller Rubber recognize and bargain with the union.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_792.jsonl#/f-supp/792/1459-01; Unicode character offsets [25252:25408] (end exclusive); SHA-256 ed7d04a7cb28f235026d6d7b085d40d7deca2112fb0461aaa25edb8d0795edeb.This request was refused in a letter from Brock dated October 8, 1991.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_792.jsonl#/f-supp/792/1459-01; Unicode character offsets [25409:25479] (end exclusive); SHA-256 ed7d04a7cb28f235026d6d7b085d40d7deca2112fb0461aaa25edb8d0795edeb.In making a Section 10(j) determination, the district court may not decide whether an unfair labor practice has actually occurred, because this ultimate determination is reserved for the board, subject to review by the court of appeals.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_792.jsonl#/f-supp/792/1459-01; Unicode character offsets [11246:11482] (end exclusive); SHA-256 ed7d04a7cb28f235026d6d7b085d40d7deca2112fb0461aaa25edb8d0795edeb.While interim bargaining is necessary to preserve the status quo, the latter part of the request reaches too far.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_792.jsonl#/f-supp/792/1459-01; Unicode character offsets [23449:23562] (end exclusive); SHA-256 ed7d04a7cb28f235026d6d7b085d40d7deca2112fb0461aaa25edb8d0795edeb. |
| National Labor Relations Board v. United States Postal Service — 841 F.2d 141 (1988) · United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1988 — satisfied · law (29usc158: author: Astra4 · not independently reviewed) | Alternative breaches of applicable collective-bargaining duties | satisfied Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: law; claim: (a); theory: information disclosure; subject: theory=information disclosure The duty is applied to specific relevant information; relevance and the employer’s privacy interests are balanced, not assumed from every union request. | information/refusal-to-identify-potentially-conflicted-representatives | Gene Cole, the Detroit MSC’s Postmaster, responded by letter and refused to provide the union with the information until its relevance to the collective bargaining process was explained.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f2d_841.jsonl#/f2d/841/0141-01; Unicode character offsets [6651:6837] (end exclusive); SHA-256 cdb9c687b3fe037ff5d885f593b297e4e0d36e897a91fa18b5affd0d1b33cf70.Generally, an employer’s duty to bargain collectively established in § 8(a)(5) of the National Labor Relations Act , obligates it to provide a labor union with relevant information necessary for the proper performance of the union’s duties as the employees’ bargaining representative.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f2d_841.jsonl#/f2d/841/0141-01; Unicode character offsets [8875:9159] (end exclusive); SHA-256 cdb9c687b3fe037ff5d885f593b297e4e0d36e897a91fa18b5affd0d1b33cf70.Therefore, we find that the union’s interest in the disclosure of the information is relevant to its duty to provide loyal representation and is not outweighed by the Postal Service's interest.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f2d_841.jsonl#/f2d/841/0141-01; Unicode character offsets [17562:17755] (end exclusive); SHA-256 cdb9c687b3fe037ff5d885f593b297e4e0d36e897a91fa18b5affd0d1b33cf70. |
| Directsat U.S. LLC v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. — 925 F.3d 1272 (2019) · Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia · 2019 — satisfied · proved (29usc158: author: Flash3 · QA: PASS (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | Alternative breaches of applicable collective-bargaining duties | satisfied Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: proved; party: DirectSat USA, LLC; count: § 8(a)(5) refusal to disclose relevant bargaining information; subject: party=DirectSat USA, LLC; count=§ 8(a)(5) refusal to disclose relevant bargaining information D.C. Circuit enforces the Board's order: by defining bargaining-unit work by reference to its whole agreement with DirecTV, the employer made the whole agreement relevant, and withholding the unredacted copy breached the § 8(a)(5) duty to furnish information. The case went to the ALJ on a stipulated record. Not recorded here: the denial of DirecTV's untimely motion to intervene and the due-process objection (procedural, not elements of § 158(a)). | employer's bargaining proposal defines unit work by reference to a third-party agreement, then employer supplies only a redacted copy | That duty encompasses a responsibility "to provide relevant information needed by a labor union for the proper performance of its duties as the employees' bargaining representative."Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_925.jsonl#/f3d/925/1272-01; Unicode character offsets [11609:11791] (end exclusive); SHA-256 e3c7ae44fd8beeb862eb2695b0a3ac38f9ddf2ef1f82deece4b6c30c1c0aea01.The Union thus must demonstrate "a reasonable belief, supported by objective evidence," that the information in the redacted portions of the agreement is relevant to the performance of its duties as the bargaining representative.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_925.jsonl#/f3d/925/1272-01; Unicode character offsets [12048:12277] (end exclusive); SHA-256 e3c7ae44fd8beeb862eb2695b0a3ac38f9ddf2ef1f82deece4b6c30c1c0aea01.DirectSat submitted a New Product Lines proposal containing the following term: "In the event [DirectSat] is engaged with respect to products or services other than those provided pursuant to its Home Service Provider agreement with DirecTV ... , such work shall not be deemed bargaining unit work."Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_925.jsonl#/f3d/925/1272-01; Unicode character offsets [1924:2223] (end exclusive); SHA-256 e3c7ae44fd8beeb862eb2695b0a3ac38f9ddf2ef1f82deece4b6c30c1c0aea01.In the ensuing months, the Union repeatedly demanded the full Home Service Provider agreement and DirectSat repeatedly refused.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_925.jsonl#/f3d/925/1272-01; Unicode character offsets [2759:2886] (end exclusive); SHA-256 e3c7ae44fd8beeb862eb2695b0a3ac38f9ddf2ef1f82deece4b6c30c1c0aea01.Two weeks later, DirectSat responded with a heavily redacted copy of the Home Service Provider agreement, which it described as "relevant to scope of work."Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_925.jsonl#/f3d/925/1272-01; Unicode character offsets [2536:2692] (end exclusive); SHA-256 e3c7ae44fd8beeb862eb2695b0a3ac38f9ddf2ef1f82deece4b6c30c1c0aea01.The Board reasonably concluded that DirectSat's bargaining proposal rendered the entire agreement relevant.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_925.jsonl#/f3d/925/1272-01; Unicode character offsets [975:1082] (end exclusive); SHA-256 e3c7ae44fd8beeb862eb2695b0a3ac38f9ddf2ef1f82deece4b6c30c1c0aea01.The company's contention that only portions of the agreement were relevant is belied by the proposal's own reference to the agreement as a whole.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_925.jsonl#/f3d/925/1272-01; Unicode character offsets [12893:13038] (end exclusive); SHA-256 e3c7ae44fd8beeb862eb2695b0a3ac38f9ddf2ef1f82deece4b6c30c1c0aea01. |
| Firstenergy Generation, LLC v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. — 929 F.3d 321 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2019 — not · law (29usc158: author: Flash3 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | Alternative breaches of applicable collective-bargaining duties | not Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: law; party: FirstEnergy Generation, LLC; count: § 8(a)(5) subcontracting outage work; subject: party=FirstEnergy Generation, LLC; count=§ 8(a)(5) subcontracting outage work Enforcement denied: balancing under Fibreboard / First National Maintenance / Wehr, the subcontracting was a business-management decision driven by a non-labor-cost reason, hence outside the duty to bargain. The court treats the Board's error as one of legal method (inflexible application of Fibreboard), but it also rejects a Board finding on labor costs as contrary to the record. Derivative ruling not given its own block: because there was no duty to bargain over the subcontracting, the employer had no duty to furnish the requested subcontractor cost information, and that part of the order is not enforced either. | one-off subcontracting of a nine-yearly turbine outage that the fully employed unit workforce could not complete within the 56-day window; not a mandatory subject of bargaining | But it is equally well established that a business management decision may not be subject to mandatory bargaining, even if it has a direct impact on employment, if the conduct of the business outweighs the benefit to labor management relations.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_929.jsonl#/f3d/929/0321-01; Unicode character offsets [29219:29463] (end exclusive); SHA-256 3624009ace70312f175eeda3bc7e07292206920299284bbf73e8408e5d9ccf27.Historically, the bargaining unit employees at Bruce Mansfield have performed all the open/clean/close work during outages.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_929.jsonl#/f3d/929/0321-01; Unicode character offsets [10302:10425] (end exclusive); SHA-256 3624009ace70312f175eeda3bc7e07292206920299284bbf73e8408e5d9ccf27.The Union was not involved in any of these discussions.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_929.jsonl#/f3d/929/0321-01; Unicode character offsets [11448:11503] (end exclusive); SHA-256 3624009ace70312f175eeda3bc7e07292206920299284bbf73e8408e5d9ccf27.The Company had 56 days to complete the M116 Project or face fines and penalties.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_929.jsonl#/f3d/929/0321-01; Unicode character offsets [10879:10960] (end exclusive); SHA-256 3624009ace70312f175eeda3bc7e07292206920299284bbf73e8408e5d9ccf27.The Company presented evidence that bargaining unit employees performed a whopping 16,000 hours of overtime while GE completed the M116 Project.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_929.jsonl#/f3d/929/0321-01; Unicode character offsets [33193:33337] (end exclusive); SHA-256 3624009ace70312f175eeda3bc7e07292206920299284bbf73e8408e5d9ccf27.Furthermore, contrary to the Board's finding, the record reflects that the subcontracting work cost the Company an additional $3 million to have GE perform the task.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_929.jsonl#/f3d/929/0321-01; Unicode character offsets [33493:33658] (end exclusive); SHA-256 3624009ace70312f175eeda3bc7e07292206920299284bbf73e8408e5d9ccf27.Thus, the Board erred in holding that the general rule of Fibreboard controlled in this situation and that the Company violated the Act by not bargaining over the subcontracting of the open/clean/close work.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_929.jsonl#/f3d/929/0321-01; Unicode character offsets [35497:35704] (end exclusive); SHA-256 3624009ace70312f175eeda3bc7e07292206920299284bbf73e8408e5d9ccf27. |
| Firstenergy Generation, LLC v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. — 929 F.3d 321 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2019 — satisfied · proved (29usc158: author: Flash3 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | Alternative breaches of applicable collective-bargaining duties | satisfied Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: proved; party: FirstEnergy Generation, LLC; count: § 8(a)(5) post-impasse unilateral change; subject: party=FirstEnergy Generation, LLC; count=§ 8(a)(5) post-impasse unilateral change Sixth Circuit upholds (substantial evidence) the Board's finding that the employer violated § 8(a)(5) by implementing, after impasse, the elimination of retiree health benefits without the wage increases and other benefits it had consistently offered in exchange (Plainville). The wage-parity explanation was weighed and rejected as the exclusive purpose. | after impasse employer implements elimination of retiree health benefits but not the wage increases it had offered as the quid pro quo | Thus, selectively implementing proposals that are "inextricably linked" with unimplemented proposals violates the Act.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_929.jsonl#/f3d/929/0321-01; Unicode character offsets [17916:18034] (end exclusive); SHA-256 3624009ace70312f175eeda3bc7e07292206920299284bbf73e8408e5d9ccf27.Cookson himself linked the GWI increase and equity adjustment as a bundle, in return for the Company's desired proposal of ending in-the-box benefits as of 10/31/15.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_929.jsonl#/f3d/929/0321-01; Unicode character offsets [23757:23922] (end exclusive); SHA-256 3624009ace70312f175eeda3bc7e07292206920299284bbf73e8408e5d9ccf27.Cookson underscored this continuing link at the August 20, 2015 meeting when, in response to Marshman's question how they could "get around [the disagreement over eliminating retiree benefits]?", Cookson said, "We have offered other things-like an initial 8.5% wage increase."Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_929.jsonl#/f3d/929/0321-01; Unicode character offsets [23943:24219] (end exclusive); SHA-256 3624009ace70312f175eeda3bc7e07292206920299284bbf73e8408e5d9ccf27.The Summary did not implement wage increases (GWI and equity adjustment) or shift differential proposals.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_929.jsonl#/f3d/929/0321-01; Unicode character offsets [9633:9738] (end exclusive); SHA-256 3624009ace70312f175eeda3bc7e07292206920299284bbf73e8408e5d9ccf27."[t]he Union wanted to bring wages at the Bruce Mansfield facility closer to those at the Sammis facility."Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_929.jsonl#/f3d/929/0321-01; Unicode character offsets [25768:25875] (end exclusive); SHA-256 3624009ace70312f175eeda3bc7e07292206920299284bbf73e8408e5d9ccf27.We therefore affirm the Board's finding that "the strong record evidence ... establishe[d] that the [Company's] proffered wage increases, shift differentials, equity adjustments, and HSA or 401(k) contributions were 'inextricably linked' to the elimination of 'in-the-box' retiree health benefits."Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_929.jsonl#/f3d/929/0321-01; Unicode character offsets [27486:27784] (end exclusive); SHA-256 3624009ace70312f175eeda3bc7e07292206920299284bbf73e8408e5d9ccf27.For the foregoing reasons, we (1) AFFIRM the Board's application to enforce its findings that the Company violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) when, after impasse, it selectively implemented certain pre-impasse bargaining proposals that were inextricably linked to other proposals not imposed;Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_929.jsonl#/f3d/929/0321-01; Unicode character offsets [36483:36772] (end exclusive); SHA-256 3624009ace70312f175eeda3bc7e07292206920299284bbf73e8408e5d9ccf27. |
| Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Ingredion Inc. — 930 F.3d 509 (2019) · Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia · 2019 — satisfied · proved (29usc158: author: Astra4 · not independently reviewed) | Alternative breaches of applicable collective-bargaining duties | satisfied Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: proved; claim: (a); party: Ingredion negotiator Meadows; theory: direct dealing; subject: party=Ingredion negotiator Meadows; theory=direct dealing Direct dealing can infringe exclusive representation without a literal refusal to attend bargaining meetings. Only the direct-dealing issue is instantiated here. | soliciting-contract-preferences-outside-union | 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.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_930.jsonl#/f3d/930/0509-01; Unicode character offsets [8176:8329] (end exclusive); SHA-256 0aee714f3c2c0be94e1c3b5745f72329b8d05a77b59795498e18ad7e57835b49.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.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_930.jsonl#/f3d/930/0509-01; Unicode character offsets [8330:8519] (end exclusive); SHA-256 0aee714f3c2c0be94e1c3b5745f72329b8d05a77b59795498e18ad7e57835b49.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."Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_930.jsonl#/f3d/930/0509-01; Unicode character offsets [7106:7353] (end exclusive); SHA-256 0aee714f3c2c0be94e1c3b5745f72329b8d05a77b59795498e18ad7e57835b49.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.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_930.jsonl#/f3d/930/0509-01; Unicode character offsets [9628:9770] (end exclusive); SHA-256 0aee714f3c2c0be94e1c3b5745f72329b8d05a77b59795498e18ad7e57835b49. |
| District Hospital Partners, L.P. v. NLRB — 141 F.4th 1279 (2025) · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 2025 — satisfied · proved (29usc158: author: Astra4 · not independently reviewed) | Alternative breaches of applicable collective-bargaining duties | satisfied Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: proved; claim: (a); theory: combined bargaining proposals; subject: theory=combined bargaining proposals The positive parent refusal-to-bargain holding records unlawful surface bargaining, not compliance with the good-faith duty. The court evaluates the combination and persistence of proposals, not a per-se obligation to concede a particular term. | no-strike-without-binding-arbitration | The Hospital’s proposal upset that balance by pairing a broad no-strike clause with the elimination of binding arbitration.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f4th_141.jsonl#/f4th/141/1279; Unicode character offsets [30950:31073] (end exclusive); SHA-256 e44686ef4aa29e9c6f5a8b2c7f456449411d6662b30eabe86fe116c8fc807ba9.After introducing the arbitration-eliminating proposal on March 29, 2017, the Hospital revised its discipline proposal on May 25 to align with a mediation-only model.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f4th_141.jsonl#/f4th/141/1279; Unicode character offsets [32728:32894] (end exclusive); SHA-256 e44686ef4aa29e9c6f5a8b2c7f456449411d6662b30eabe86fe116c8fc807ba9.Despite repeated objections from the Union, the Hospital maintained that position through June 7, 2018.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f4th_141.jsonl#/f4th/141/1279; Unicode character offsets [32907:33010] (end exclusive); SHA-256 e44686ef4aa29e9c6f5a8b2c7f456449411d6662b30eabe86fe116c8fc807ba9.Overall, we uphold the Board’s determinations that the Hospital’s conduct amounted to bad faith surface bargaining in violation of Sections 8(a)(1) and 8(a)(5) of the NLRA.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f4th_141.jsonl#/f4th/141/1279; Unicode character offsets [37446:37618] (end exclusive); SHA-256 e44686ef4aa29e9c6f5a8b2c7f456449411d6662b30eabe86fe116c8fc807ba9. |
Court interpretations
interpretation
It is therefore "an infringement of the Act for the employer to disregard the bargaining representative by negotiating with individual employees, whether a majority or a minority, with respect to wages, hours and working conditions."
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Ingredion Inc. — 930 F.3d 509 (2019) · Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia · 2019 (29usc158: author: Astra4 · not independently reviewed)
It is therefore "an infringement of the Act for the employer to disregard the bargaining representative by negotiating with individual employees, whether a majority or a minority, with respect to wages, hours and working conditions."Source:
docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_930.jsonl#/f3d/930/0509-01; Unicode character offsets [6846:7079] (end exclusive); SHA-256 0aee714f3c2c0be94e1c3b5745f72329b8d05a77b59795498e18ad7e57835b49.Includes the direct-dealing variant as described by the D.C. Circuit; the §8(d) duty does not compel substantive concession.