## Facts

- The employer operated a unionized plant in Milwaukee, Wisconsin and a nonunion plant in McHenry, Illinois.
- The employer and UAW Local 547 were parties to a collective-bargaining agreement (CBA) running through March 31, 1983.
- In January 1982, the employer sought midterm CBA concessions, including elimination of a scheduled wage increase, citing high labor costs at the Milwaukee plant.
- The union refused to grant the requested concessions.
- On March 12, 1982, the employer proposed transferring assembly operations to McHenry to reduce labor costs.
- After union members rejected concessions, the employer announced and implemented the transfer, resulting in layoffs at the Milwaukee facility.
- The parties stipulated that the transfer was undertaken solely to reduce higher Milwaukee labor costs, was economically motivated, and was not based on antiunion animus.
- The parties further stipulated that the employer bargained in good faith regarding the relocation decision and was willing to bargain over the effects of the transfer.
- The CBA lacked an express work-preservation or job-security clause requiring that the work remain in Milwaukee, and the relocation was not shown to violate the CBA’s express terms.

## Issues

1. Whether § 8(d) and §§ 8(a)(1), 8(a)(3), and 8(a)(5) of the NLRA prohibit an employer, during a CBA term, from relocating bargaining-unit work to a nonunion facility for labor-cost savings when the employer bargains in good faith and the CBA does not expressly bar the move.
2. Whether announcing and implementing relocation absent midterm concessions constitutes an unlawful refusal to bargain or an unlawful midterm contract modification when the relocation is economically motivated and not antiunion.

## Decision

- On remand, the NLRB reversed its earlier position and dismissed the unfair labor practice allegations on the stipulated record.
- The Board held the employer did not violate § 8(d) or §§ 8(a)(1), 8(a)(3), or 8(a)(5) by relocating the work to reduce labor costs under the circumstances presented.
- The Board reasoned that the employer met its bargaining obligation by good-faith bargaining over the decision and effects, and § 8(d) does not require either party to accept proposals or make concessions.
- The Board declined to treat the CBA as containing an implied work-preservation restriction absent an express contractual limitation.
- A dissent would have found the relocation unlawful as an effort to avoid the CBA’s wage provisions during the contract term.

## Legal Principles

- An economically motivated relocation of bargaining-unit work during a CBA term is not unlawful under §§ 8(a)(5) and 8(d) where the employer bargains in good faith over the decision and effects and the CBA does not expressly prohibit the relocation.
- Section 8(d) imposes a duty to bargain in good faith but does not compel agreement or require either party to make concessions.
- Absent antiunion motive, a labor-cost-driven relocation does not establish discrimination under § 8(a)(3).
- The Board will not infer a work-preservation obligation that the parties did not secure in the CBA’s express terms.

## Conclusion

The NLRB held that, on stipulated facts showing a purely economic motive, no antiunion animus, good-faith bargaining, and no express contractual bar, the employer could transfer operations from a union facility to a nonunion facility during the CBA term without violating §§ 8(a)(1), 8(a)(3), 8(a)(5), or 8(d) of the NLRA.


Milwaukee Spring Div. of Ill. Coil Spring Co., 268 N.L.R.B. 601 (1984)