Kellogg Co. v. National Labor Relations Board
840 F.3d 322
| 6th Cir. | 2016Background
- Kellogg and Bakery, Confectionery, Tobacco Workers & Grain Millers Local Union 252‑G negotiated a successor to a plant‑specific Memphis Agreement while a multi‑plant Master Agreement remained in effect. The Master Agreement (2012–2015) covered general terms and had only a limited wage provision addressing “non‑regular”/casual employees; the Memphis Agreement defined and regulated the local casual program.
- Kellogg proposed to expand the casual program to allow hiring casuals for any bargaining‑unit work, remove limits on duties/hours and duration, and give casuals seniority, grievance rights, bidding access, and priority in alternative crewing.
- The Union refused to negotiate those proposals, insisting they were modifications of the unexpired Master Agreement; negotiations reached impasse and Kellogg locked out ~200 bargaining‑unit employees.
- The NLRB found Kellogg’s proposals were an unlawful mid‑term modification of the Master Agreement (an “effective modification”), making the lockout unlawful under Sections 8(a)(1), (3), and (5) of the NLRA.
- The Sixth Circuit granted review: it affirmed the Board’s ruling that Kellogg unlawfully withheld requested information (and enforced that portion), but vacated the remainder of the Board’s order, holding the proposals did not modify any express term of the Master Agreement and that the Board failed to explain departing from its Milwaukee Spring precedent.
Issues
| Issue | Union/NLRB Argument | Kellogg Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Kellogg’s proposal constituted an unlawful mid‑term modification of the unexpired Master Agreement | Proposal would effectively alter wage/benefit scheme and erase distinction between regular and casual employees, thus modifying the Master Agreement | Master Agreement contains no work‑preservation or regular/casual scheme (aside from a limited wage reference); proposal targeted the Memphis supplemental agreement and did not change any express Master term | Vacated Board’s finding of unlawful mid‑term modification: proposal did not modify an express Master Agreement term; Board failed to justify departing from Milwaukee Spring precedent |
| Whether the Board may rely on an “effective modification” theory (implying a work‑preservation term) absent an express contractual term | Effective modification theory proper where practical effect undermines contract benefits to newly hired regulars | Board cannot create an implied work‑preservation clause; must identify a specific contract term that was modified | Court held Board must identify a specific term in the contract; Milwaukee Spring controls and Board failed to justify departure |
| Whether Kellogg’s lockout was unlawful because it coerced agreement to a mid‑term modification | Lockout enforced an unlawful insistence on a non‑mandatory mid‑term modification | If no mid‑term modification exists, lockout was a lawful economic weapon after impasse | Because no unlawful mid‑term modification shown, lockout finding vacated |
| Whether Kellogg unlawfully refused information requests from the Union during bargaining | NLRB found information withholding violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) | Kellogg did not contest this finding on appeal | Court enforced the Board’s information‑request violation finding |
Key Cases Cited
- NLRB v. Galicks, Inc., 671 F.3d 602 (6th Cir. 2012) (standard of review for Board factual findings)
- NLRB v. Int’l Bhd. of Elec. Workers, 514 F.3d 646 (6th Cir. 2008) (deference to Board interpretations of NLRA if reasonably defensible)
- Litton Fin. Printing Div. v. NLRB, 501 U.S. 190 (1991) (role of Board to balance interests in collective bargaining and labor peace)
- NLRB v. Wooster Div. of Borg‑Warner Corp., 356 U.S. 342 (1958) (no duty to bargain over modifications to terms that cannot be reopened under a fixed‑term contract)
- Horsehead Res. Dev. Co. v. NLRB, 154 F.3d 328 (6th Cir. 1998) (lockouts can be unlawful if motivated by hostility to collective bargaining)
- Don Lee Distributor, Inc. v. NLRB, 145 F.3d 834 (6th Cir. 1998) (fact‑intensive inquiry into employer conduct; no bright‑line magic words)
- Pleasantview Nursing Home, Inc. v. NLRB, 351 F.3d 747 (6th Cir. 2003) (definition of impasse in bargaining)
- Kindred Nursing Ctrs. v. NLRB, 727 F.3d 552 (6th Cir. 2013) (agency may depart from precedent only with adequate explanation)