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.All variants
| Variant | Description | Merits instance blocks | Distinct cases | Example cases (up to 3 per group) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| bargaining/direct-dealing | Bypassing the exclusive representative on bargaining subjects. | 0 Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 0 | 0 | No annotation uses in this snapshot |
| direct-dealing/soliciting-contract-preferences-outside-union | 1 Satisfied 1; not satisfied 0; excluded context 0 | 1 | /f3d/930/0509-01 — Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia · 2019 — satisfied | |
| information/refusal-to-identify-potentially-conflicted-representatives | 1 Satisfied 1; not satisfied 0; excluded context 0 | 1 | /f2d/841/0141-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1988 — satisfied | |
| interim-relief/successor-recognition-dispute | 0 Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 1 | 0 | No counted merits examples Excluded context examples: /f-supp/792/1459-01 — United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi · 1992 — background/procedural | |
| surface-bargaining/no-strike-without-binding-arbitration | 1 Satisfied 1; not satisfied 0; excluded context 0 | 1 | /f4th/141/1279 — Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 2025 — satisfied |
How courts decided this element
| Case | Element | Holding and scope | Variant | Exact source quotations |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| /f-supp/792/1459-01 — United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi · 1992 | 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. |
| /f2d/841/0141-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1988 | 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. |
| /f3d/930/0509-01 — Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia · 2019 | 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. | direct-dealing/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. |
| /f4th/141/1279 — Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 2025 | 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. | surface-bargaining/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."
/f3d/930/0509-01 — Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia · 2019
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.