847 F.3d 547
7th Cir.2017Background
- Columbia College Chicago and the Part-Time Faculty Association at Columbia (PFAC) were governed by a 2006 collective-bargaining agreement (CBA) kept in effect while negotiating a successor; the CBA included a broad management-rights clause allowing Columbia to modify curricula and courses.
- The CBA tied part-time faculty pay to course credit hours and required Columbia to notify affected instructors of significant course changes, but did not expressly reserve effects bargaining for PFAC.
- Columbia unilaterally reduced credit hours for multiple performing-arts courses (effective 2011–12) and notified affected faculty but not PFAC; PFAC later demanded bargaining over the effects of those reductions.
- PFAC filed unfair-labor-practice charges; the NLRB found Columbia failed to engage in effects bargaining, set unlawful preconditions, and bargained in bad faith and awarded PFAC bargaining expenses for specified periods.
- The Seventh Circuit reviewed de novo whether the CBA precluded an obligation to bargain over effects and concluded the CBA’s terms fully defined the parties’ rights (contract-coverage analysis), vacating the effects-bargaining order and remanding the remedy issue.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Columbia had a duty to bargain over the effects of credit-hour reductions | PFAC: management decisions that affect working conditions required effects bargaining despite the CBA | Columbia: the 2006 CBA’s management-rights clause fully covered course-credit changes, so no separate effects-bargaining duty | Held: No duty to bargain over effects—contract-coverage controls because the CBA fully defined rights and contained no provision treating effects separately |
| Proper standard to determine waiver of bargaining rights | PFAC: Board’s "clear and unmistakable" waiver standard should apply | Columbia: Circuit precedent (Chicago Tribune) uses contract-coverage analysis; clear-and-unmistakable inapplicable when CBA fully defines rights | Held: Applied circuit precedent—when CBA fully defines rights, the clear-and-unmistakable standard is irrelevant; no deference to Board on that legal standard |
| Whether prior settlement or history showed parties intended to treat effects separately | PFAC: a prior Photography Department settlement and bargaining history show no waiver of effects bargaining | Columbia: long history of unchallenged curriculum changes and CBA terms show parties did not intend separate treatment | Held: Prior settlement limited to Photography Dept. and insufficient to show parties intended to separate decision and effects bargaining |
| Whether bargaining-expenses remedy was warranted | PFAC: Columbia’s bad-faith conduct justified reimbursement of negotiation costs | Columbia: award relied in part on an obligation to bargain over effects (which it denies), so remedy should be vacated or reconsidered | Held: Vacated the award of bargaining expenses tied to effects-bargaining refusal and remanded for the Board to reassess remedy excluding effects-bargaining conduct; other remedies enforced |
Key Cases Cited
- Metropolitan Edison Co. v. N.L.R.B., 460 U.S. 693 (Sup. Ct.) (waiver of statutory bargaining rights must be clear and unmistakable)
- Chicago Tribune Co. v. N.L.R.B., 974 F.2d 933 (7th Cir.) (where CBA fully defines rights, contract governs and clear-and-unmistakable waiver standard is irrelevant)
- Enloe Med. Ctr. v. N.L.R.B., 433 F.3d 834 (D.C. Cir.) (contract interpretation decides whether effects are treated separately from the decision itself)
- Gissel Packing Co. v. N.L.R.B., 395 U.S. 575 (Sup. Ct.) (circumstances may warrant reimbursement of negotiation expenses when unfair practices infect core bargaining process)
- Ford Motor Co. v. N.L.R.B., 441 U.S. 488 (Sup. Ct.) (courts refuse enforcement of Board orders lacking a reasonable basis in law)