## Facts

- MV Transportation, Inc. and the Union were parties to a collective-bargaining agreement (CBA) with a management-rights clause.
- The clause gave the employer the right to “issue, amend, and revise employment policies, rules, and regulations” and the exclusive right to “discipline and discharge for just cause and to adopt and enforce reasonable work rules.”
- MV notified the Union that it intended to implement revised work policies, including a revised safety policy adding training requirements and providing for discipline for noncompliance.
- MV met with the Union, invited input, and modified some proposed policies in response.
- MV implemented the revised safety policy without obtaining Union agreement.
- The Union filed an unfair labor practice charge alleging a unilateral change in terms and conditions of employment in violation of NLRA §§ 8(a)(5) and 8(d).
- The parties waived an administrative hearing and submitted the case to the Board on a stipulated record.

## Issues

1. What standard governs an employer’s contractual defense to a unilateral-change allegation: the “clear and unmistakable waiver” standard or the “contract coverage” standard.
2. Under the proper standard, whether the CBA permitted MV to implement the revised safety policy without further bargaining, such that there was no violation of NLRA §§ 8(a)(5) and 8(d).

## Decision

- The Board overruled the “clear and unmistakable waiver” approach and adopted the “contract coverage” standard for unilateral-change cases involving a contractual defense.
- Under contract coverage, the Board asks whether the challenged action falls within the compass or scope of CBA language granting the employer the relevant authority.
- Applying that standard, the Board held the CBA’s management-rights and work-rules provisions covered MV’s revision and enforcement of safety-related work policies.
- Because the change was covered by the CBA, MV had no continuing duty to bargain to agreement or impasse over the revisions during the contract term.
- The Board dismissed the allegation that MV violated NLRA §§ 8(a)(5) and 8(d) by unilaterally implementing the revised safety policy.

## Legal Principles

- When an employer claims a CBA authorized unilateral action, the Board applies “contract coverage,” asking whether the action is within the compass or scope of a contractual grant of authority.
- Contract coverage does not require the CBA to specifically mention the precise employer decision or factual setting; general provisions may govern later-arising situations.
- If the challenged change is covered by the CBA, the employer does not have a continuing statutory duty to bargain over that change during the agreement’s term.
- Management-rights clauses granting authority to issue or revise policies and to adopt and enforce reasonable work rules can cover revisions to safety rules and related disciplinary consequences.

## Conclusion

The Board replaced the clear-and-unmistakable-waiver test with contract coverage and held that MV’s CBA broadly authorized unilateral revision and enforcement of safety-related work policies, defeating the Union’s unilateral-change claim under NLRA §§ 8(a)(5) and 8(d).


MV Transportation, Inc., 368 N.L.R.B. No. 66 (2019)