Skip to main content

The NLRB public website is scheduled to undergo routine maintenance from Friday, November 21, 2025, at 11:00 PM ET (8:00 PM PT) until Monday, November 24, 2025, at 6:00 AM ET. From Friday night at 11:00 pm ET through Saturday morning at about 9:00 am ET, E-Filing will not be available. From Saturday through Monday morning, the E-Filing applications (E-Filing, Online Charge and Petition, and My Account Portal) may be periodically unavailable. We apologize for any inconvenience.
The NLRB reopened from shutdown status on November 13, 2025. Due dates to file or serve most documents were tolled during the period of the shutdown, although due dates cannot be tolled for filing and service of unfair labor practice charges, applications for awards of fees and other expenses under the Equal Access to Justice Act, and certain representation petitions. For documents where tolling applies, the terms are that for each day on which the Agency’s offices were closed for all or any portion of the day, one day is added to the time for filing or service of the document. If the new due date falls on a weekend or holiday, the new due date will be moved to the next business day. For example, if the original due date was October 7, 2025 and the shutdown lasted 43 days, the revised due date is November 19, 2025. See chart for revised due dates.

Breadcrumb

  1. Home

News & Publications

Newspapers

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit upholds Board decision on pre-recognition agreements

Office of Public Affairs

202-273-1991

publicinfo@nlrb.gov

www.nlrb.gov

In a decision issued Thursday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit upheld a 2010 National Labor Relations Board ruling that an employer and union did not violate federal labor law by entering into an agreement establishing principles for bargaining if employees selected union representation. 
The case involved an agreement signed by the United Auto Workers union and auto parts manufacturer Dana Corp. setting ground rules for union organizing at a plant in St. Johns, Michigan, and establishing a framework for negotiations if a majority of workers chose the union. After the agreement was signed, several workers filed charges with the NLRB alleging that the agreement constituted an unlawful recognition of the union.  Ultimately, the union did not win majority support and the plant closed, but the case continued.
While acknowledging “thoughtful majority and dissenting opinions” in the 2-to-1 Board decision, the Court deferred to the Board’s conclusion that the agreement did not unlawfully recognize the union and  “did no more than create a framework for future collective bargaining.” It further found that “the Board was within its discretion to allow some substantive terms to be determined between the employer and union prior to recognition, as long as that agreement did not ultimately impact employees’ choice regarding union representation.”
In upholding the Board decision, the Court denied a petition for review filed by two of the workers who originally filed charges.
The Court found that the Board had properly distinguished the Dana agreement from one that was held to be unlawful in Majestic Weaving, 147 NLRB 859 (1964). A press release on the 2010 Board decision is here.