1 - National Labor Relations Board

Enforcement Litigation 141
ings before the union gave notice of intent to reopen the contract,
it could also impose conditions on its agreement to such meetings.
Especially in view of the fact that permitting a mixed committee
might present dangers to the good-faith bargaining process, the
court was unwilling to hold that all acts which would be improper
in the mandatory bargaining period are equally so during
preliminary discussions.
c. Subjects for Bargaining
The subject matter embraced by the phrase "wages, hours, and
other terms and conditions of employment," as it is set forth in
section 8(d) of the Act to describe the matters concerning which
the employer and the employee representative must bargain
collectively, received further definition in some of the court decisions
issued during the report year. In Dixie Ohio Express,"
the Sixth Circuit rejected the Board's finding that an employer
who operated a freight terminal violated section 8 (a) (5) and
(1) of the Act by unilaterally changing the procedure of loading
and unloading merchandise at its terminal, thereby causing the
layoff of a number of employees. In the court's opinion, the employer's
action constituted merely a change in ordinary day-today
operating procedures which did not directly involve wages,
hours, and other terms and conditions of employment. Accordingly,
the case was viewed as analogous to Adams Dairy, 47 where the
Eighth Circuit held that an employer was not required to bargain
about its decision to terminate a phase of its operations and
distribute its products through independent contractors, since requiring
bargaining about this decision would significantly abridge
the employer's freedom to manage its own affairs, rather than
to Fibreboard," where the Supreme Court held, in a case where
the contracting out involved the replacement of the employer's
employees with those of an independent contractor under similar
conditions of employment, that an employer was required to bargain
about a decision to subcontract unit work. The court emphasized
that Fibreboard had not held that an employer must
bargain about every managerial decision which has the effect of
terminating an individual's employment.
In Star Expansion Industries," the District of Columbia Circuit
"N.L.R.B. V. Dixze Ohio Express Co., 409 F.2d 10.
" N.L.R.B. v. Adams Dairy, 350 F.2d 108, cert. denied 382 U.S. 1011, Thirtieth Annual Report
(1965), p. 140.
48 Fthreboard Paper Products Corp. v. N.L.R.B., 379 U.S. 203 (1964), Thirtieth Annual Report
(1965), pp. 118-119.
49 U.E. v. N.L.R.B., 409 F.2d 150.