## Facts

- Dana Corporation operated a facility in St. Johns, Michigan with about 300 employees.
- Dana and the UAW executed a pre-recognition Letter of Agreement (LOA) when the UAW lacked majority support at the facility.
- The LOA committed Dana to neutrality during organizing, including an agreement not to campaign against the union.
- The LOA established a card-check recognition process, including third-party verification of authorization cards; Dana would recognize the UAW only upon a demonstrated majority.
- Dana agreed to provide certain employee information and afford specified union access related to organizing.
- The LOA included nonbinding “principles” and timelines intended to guide bargaining if the UAW later obtained majority status, referencing topics such as contract duration, compensation structure, health-care cost sharing, attendance, mandatory overtime, and dispute resolution.
- Three employees filed unfair labor practice charges alleging unlawful employer assistance and interference and unlawful union coercion.
- An ALJ dismissed the complaint; a divided Board panel reviewed the dismissal.

## Issues

1. Whether a pre-recognition LOA providing neutrality, card-check procedures, information sharing, and union access unlawfully supported or assisted a minority union in violation of NLRA § 8(a)(2) and interfered with employee rights under § 8(a)(1).
2. Whether the LOA unlawfully involved pre-majority bargaining over terms and conditions of employment under the Majestic Weaving doctrine.

## Decision

- The Board (2–1) affirmed the ALJ and dismissed the complaint.
- The majority held the LOA was lawful and did not violate § 8(a)(2) or § 8(a)(1).
- The majority concluded that neutrality and card-check agreements of this type typically do not interfere with employee free choice.
- The majority held the LOA’s bargaining-related provisions were a contingent framework for future bargaining, not unlawful negotiation of substantive contract terms with a minority union.
- The dissent would have found the LOA unlawful as impermissible pre-majority bargaining and unlawful assistance to a minority union.

## Legal Principles

- An employer does not violate NLRA § 8(a)(2) merely by entering a pre-recognition neutrality and card-check agreement that structures the organizing process without granting recognition absent majority support.
- Procedural cooperation (e.g., neutrality, access, and information commitments) is generally lawful when it does not amount to employer domination of a union or coercive interference with employee free choice under § 8(a)(1).
- Under the pre-majority bargaining rule associated with Majestic Weaving, employers may not negotiate and commit to substantive mandatory terms and conditions of employment with a union that lacks majority status.
- A pre-recognition agreement may lawfully set ground rules and a contingent bargaining framework, so long as it does not confer immediate exclusive recognition or bind employees to substantive contract terms before the union attains majority support.

## Conclusion

The Board upheld a pre-recognition neutrality and card-check LOA as a lawful organizing framework and held that contingent, nonbinding bargaining principles did not constitute unlawful assistance or prohibited pre-majority collective bargaining.


Dana Corp. (II), 356 N.L.R.B. 256 (2010)