## Facts

- A radio station employer and a labor union representing on-air artists were parties to a collective-bargaining agreement (CBA) recognizing the union as the artists’ exclusive bargaining representative.
- The CBA expressly permitted the employer to enter into individual employment contracts with artists, provided the individual contracts were “more favorable” than the CBA.
- The CBA included a grievance procedure to challenge any individual contract alleged to fail the “more favorable” requirement.
- The employer executed individual contracts with certain artists.
- The General Counsel alleged the individual contracts were less favorable than the CBA because they (a) could allow compensation below CBA minimums and (b) imposed restrictions on outside work during the contract term and for a period after expiration.
- The employer asserted the contracts included additional compensation opportunities that could result in pay exceeding CBA minimums; the record did not show any artist was actually paid less than CBA minimums.
- Neither the union nor any artist filed a grievance challenging any individual contract as less favorable.
- A trial examiner recommended dismissal of the complaint; the General Counsel and union filed exceptions.

## Issues

1. Whether an employer violates the NLRA by entering into individual employment contracts in a union-represented unit when the CBA expressly authorizes individual contracts that are “more favorable” than the CBA.
2. Whether the challenged individual contracts were shown to be less favorable than the CBA, such that their use constituted violations of NLRA §§ 8(a)(1), 8(a)(3), or 8(a)(5).

## Decision

- The Board adopted the trial examiner’s recommendation and dismissed the complaint.
- The Board held that entering into individual contracts did not, by itself, violate the NLRA where the CBA expressly authorized such contracts and the record did not establish the contracts were less favorable than the CBA.
- The Board found the General Counsel failed to prove the contracts undercut CBA minimum standards or unlawfully impaired the union’s status as exclusive representative.
- A dissent was noted by two Board members.

## Legal Principles

- An employer may enter into individual employment contracts in a union-represented bargaining unit when the CBA negotiated with the exclusive representative expressly permits individual agreements that improve (or at least do not reduce) employee terms relative to the CBA.
- Allegations that individual contracts are “less favorable” require proof beyond speculative possibilities; the Board looks for record evidence that the contracts, as used, actually reduce collectively bargained protections.
- Individual contracting authorized by a CBA is not treated as unlawful individual dealing absent proof that the employer used it to bypass the union’s exclusive role through coercion, discrimination, or other conduct inconsistent with collective bargaining.
- A union’s failure to invoke an agreed grievance mechanism to challenge allegedly inferior individual contracts may be considered probative in assessing whether the contracts were treated by the parties as inconsistent with the CBA.

## Conclusion

The NLRB found no unfair labor practice where a CBA expressly allowed “more favorable” individual artist contracts and the General Counsel did not prove the contracts were in fact less favorable or were used to undermine exclusive representation; the complaint was dismissed.


Midland Broad. Co., 93 N.L.R.B. 445 (1951)