## Facts

- Illinois Coil Spring Company operated three divisions that constituted a single employer; each division’s employees were a separate bargaining unit.
- The UAW represented employees at the Milwaukee Spring division; employees at the McHenry Spring division were not union-represented.
- The parties’ collective bargaining agreement (effective April 1, 1980 to March 31, 1983) included wage/benefit terms, recognition, management rights, arbitration, and a zipper clause.
- The agreement contained no work-preservation clause restricting transfer of bargaining-unit work from Milwaukee Spring during the contract term.
- In 1982, after financial deterioration and loss of a major contract, the Company sought midterm concessions, including waiver of a scheduled wage increase.
- The Company advised union bargaining representatives that it might relocate assembly operations from Milwaukee Spring to McHenry Spring unless concessions were obtained.
- The parties bargained over concessions and the proposed relocation; the Company stated it would consider union proposals.
- The union membership voted against concessions; the Company then transferred Milwaukee Spring assembly operations to McHenry Spring, where the work was performed by nonunion employees.
- The parties stipulated that the Company acted without antiunion animus, the relocation was economically motivated, and the Company satisfied its bargaining obligations regarding the proposed relocation.
- The Union filed unfair labor practice charges alleging violations of NLRA §§ 8(a)(1), 8(a)(3), and 8(d) based on conditioning continued performance of unit work on concessions and relocating after refusal.
- The NLRB dismissed the complaint; the Union petitioned for review and the Board sought enforcement.

## Issues

1. Whether NLRA § 8(d) bars an employer, during a contract term, from stating that operations may be relocated unless the union agrees to midterm concessions and then relocating when concessions are rejected, where the conduct is economically motivated, free of antiunion animus, consistent with the contract, and preceded by bargaining.
2. Whether the employer’s conduct constituted an unlawful midterm “modification” of the collective bargaining agreement under § 8(d).
3. Whether the relocation decision and related bargaining conduct violated NLRA §§ 8(a)(1) or 8(a)(3).

## Decision

- The court denied the Union’s petition for review and enforced the Board’s order dismissing the complaint.
- The court held that, on the stipulated facts, § 8(d) did not prohibit either the announcement of a possible relocation or the subsequent decision to relocate.
- The court agreed with the Board that the employer did not unlawfully “modify” the collective bargaining agreement because the agreement did not restrict relocation of work.
- The court upheld the Board’s determination that the relocation did not violate §§ 8(a)(1) or 8(a)(3) in the absence of antiunion animus and given the economic motivation and contractual permissibility.

## Legal Principles

- An employer does not “modify” a collective bargaining agreement under NLRA § 8(d) by acting within management prerogatives left unregulated by the agreement, including relocating work when the contract contains no work-preservation restriction.
- An employer’s statement during bargaining that it may relocate operations absent midterm concessions may be lawful bargaining conduct when tied to economic considerations and not used to implement a unilateral change inconsistent with the contract.
- A relocation decision that adversely affects unit employees does not violate NLRA § 8(a)(3) absent evidence of discriminatory motive to encourage or discourage union membership; economic self-interest, without antiunion animus, may be a lawful basis when consistent with contractual terms.
- Courts generally defer to the NLRB’s reasonable construction of the NLRA and its application to stipulated facts.

## Conclusion

The D.C. Circuit upheld the NLRB’s dismissal of unfair labor practice charges, concluding that an economically driven relocation to a nonunion facility—preceded by bargaining and permitted by a contract lacking work-preservation limits—was not an unlawful midterm contract modification under § 8(d) and did not violate §§ 8(a)(1) or 8(a)(3) absent antiunion motive.


International Union, United Auto., Aerospace & Agric. Implement Workers of Am. v. NLRB, 765 F.2d 175 (D.C. Cir. 1985)