369 U.S. 736 (1962) Cited 710 times 29 Legal Analyses
Holding that "an employer's unilateral change in conditions of employment under negotiation" is a violation of the National Labor Relations Act because "it is a circumvention of the duty to negotiate"
Concluding employer entitled to judgment as matter of law where employee offered no evidence of number and types of positions available in local job market that did not require heavy or medium lifting
Concluding impasse was valid where "not a single one of the Union's statements . . . actually committed the Union to a new position or contained any specific proposals"
Rejecting employer's contention that it had insufficient notice regarding the potential relevance of a union request for individual insurance claims information because "context is everything," and the employer "put on the table" the concern of growing health care costs
Holding that brevity of parties' negotiations on issue and union's position that it still "had more movement to make" undermine employer's declaration of impasse
Noting that when, among other factors, a new negotiator was substituted, "the lack of a significant bargaining history would dictate giving the parties a fuller opportunity to effect an agreement than occurred here"