• Study help Business Human Resource Management BACKGROUND Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc., operates a multistate chain of retail Your question has been posted. We'll notify you when a Solutioninn Expert has answered. Post another question. BACKGROUND Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc., Operates A Multistate Chain Of Retail Food Stores. Its Volume Of Business Is Such That It Is Engaged In Interstate Commerce. The United Food And Commercial Workers Is The Authorized Bargaining Agent For All Employees (With The Standard Exceptions) Engaged In The Receiving, Shipping, And Processing Of All Food Products At The Winn-Dixie Warehouse In Jacksonville, BACKGROUND Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc., operates a multistate chain of retail food stores. Its volume of business is such that it is engaged in interstate commerce. The United Food and Commercial Workers is the authorized bargaining agent for all employees (with the standard exceptions) engaged in the receiving, shipping, and processing of all food products at the Winn-Dixie warehouse in Jacksonville, Florida. The previous collective bargaining agreement expired in February, and the two parties were continuing to negotiate a new agreement. On April 8, the company submitted a wage proposal to the union that would increase wages for employees in the bargaining unit by 56 to 81 cents per hour. The offer was rejected by the union. In letters dated April 17 and April 25, the union requested dates for the purpose of collective bargaining. The company responded to the union in a letter dated May 3. The letter contained two proposals. First, the company suggested arranging a meeting to be held in early June. Second, the company proposed that the wage proposal dated April 8 “be put into effect immediately without prejudice to further bargaining on the subject.” The union responded on May 6 by rejecting the wage proposal and emphasized its desire to bargain not only for “wage increases, but increases in pensions, vacations, hospitalization, and other fringe benefits as well as terms and conditions of employment.” The parties met for the purpose of collective bargaining on June 24. Each side discussed the current agreement section by section. Each side, for the most part, simply restated its previously announced bargaining positions. Additionally, the company again expressed its wish to implement the wage proposal of April 8. The company stated that such an increase was necessary to keep its wages competitive in the local labor market because Winn-Dixie warehouse employees had not received a wage increase in over 18 months. The company also stated that it did not intend to have the implementation of this wage increase foreclose further bargaining on the subject of wages. Again the union would not agree to this wage proposal. The union preferred to first reach agreement on premium pay, holidays, vacations, the pension plan, and arbitration. Similar negotiating sessions occurred on July 1 and July 2. At the second of these two meetings the company informed the union that as of July 7, it was implementing the proposed wage increase. The company further proposed that the union and the company post joint notice of this increase, stating that it was an interim increase and further bargaining was still taking place. The union replied that it would not agree and that if the company implemented the increase, the union would file an unfair labor practice charge. The company implemented the wage increase plan on July 7. THE UNION’S POSITION The unilateral change for wages of employees represented by the union violates Sections 8(a)(5) and 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act. THE COMPANY’S POSITION A unilateral change in wages or working conditions by an employer during negotiations, in the absence of an impasse, does not per se establish a failure of the duty to bargain. In fact, the union was given ample notice of the proposed changes, and there was adequate time for the union to make counterproposals. QUESTIONS You are an administrative law judge who has to decide this case. With which party do you agree? Why? Does it matter that the parties were not at an impasse?