## Facts

- Dana Corporation operated a facility in St. Johns, Michigan, where the UAW sought to organize approximately 305 employees; the UAW already represented thousands of Dana employees elsewhere.
- Dana and the UAW executed a pre-recognition “Letter of Agreement” (LOA) setting ground rules for organizing and any future bargaining if the UAW obtained majority support.
- The LOA provided that Dana would remain neutral during the organizing effort and stated employee freedom of choice was a primary concern, with both parties committing to avoid intimidation or coercion.
- The LOA stated Dana would not recognize the UAW unless a majority of employees indicated support.
- The LOA granted the UAW certain access to employees and specified employee information, and used a neutral third party card-check procedure to verify majority support.
- The LOA included nonbinding principles for potential future bargaining and included a no-strike/no-lockout commitment pending completion of a collective bargaining agreement.
- Dana publicly described the LOA as a “partnership agreement.”
- Employees Joseph Montague and Kenneth Gray filed unfair labor practice charges alleging Dana unlawfully assisted/dominated the union (§§ 8(a)(1), 8(a)(2)) and the UAW restrained/coerced employees (§ 8(b)(1)(A)).
- An ALJ dismissed the complaint; a divided NLRB affirmed. Before any representation choice occurred, Dana sold the facility and the employees never selected the UAW.

## Issues

1. Whether the LOA constituted unlawful employer assistance or domination of a labor organization, or unlawful pre-recognition, in violation of NLRA §§ 8(a)(2) and 8(a)(1).
2. Whether the LOA and related conduct restrained or coerced employees in the exercise of § 7 rights, in violation of NLRA §§ 8(a)(1) and 8(b)(1)(A).
3. Whether the NLRB reasonably concluded, on this record, that the LOA did not impermissibly restrict employee choice.

## Decision

- The Sixth Circuit denied the petition for review and granted the NLRB’s cross-application for enforcement.
- The court held substantial evidence supported the NLRB’s factual findings and the Board’s interpretation of the NLRA was reasonably defensible.
- The court agreed the LOA was a contingent, pre-recognition framework that did not recognize the union without majority support and did not bind employees to substantive contract terms.
- The court upheld the Board’s conclusion that neutrality, access/information sharing, and card-check procedures were not unlawful where employees remained free to accept or reject representation.
- The court found no sufficient evidence of threats, promises, or other conduct amounting to unlawful coercion.

## Legal Principles

- Courts uphold NLRB factual findings if supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole.
- The NLRB’s reasonable interpretations of the NLRA receive substantial judicial deference.
- A pre-recognition agreement may be lawful when recognition is expressly conditioned on majority employee support and the agreement does not establish a bargaining relationship absent that support.
- Neutrality and card-check procedures are not per se unlawful under NLRA § 8(a)(2); the key inquiry is whether employer conduct or agreements impermissibly restrict employee free choice or amount to employer domination/assistance.
- Nonbinding, contingent statements of future bargaining goals differ from a binding collective bargaining agreement and do not necessarily waive or predetermine employees’ representational rights.

## Conclusion

The Sixth Circuit enforced the NLRB’s dismissal of unfair labor practice charges, holding the Board reasonably found that Dana and the UAW’s pre-recognition neutrality/card-check framework agreement, including access provisions and prospective bargaining principles, did not unlawfully dominate or assist the union or coerce employees where recognition remained contingent on majority support and employee choice remained intact.


Montague v. Nat’l Labor Relations Bd., 698 F.3d 307 (6th Cir. 2012)