I’ve Got a Proposal for You: NLRB Says Bargaining Proposals Don’t Independently Violate Employee Rights

On July 29, 2026, the National Labor Relations Board (Board) issued its decision in Inland Waters Pollution Control, Inc., Cases 07-CA-277239 and 07-CA-279287, reversing an administrative law judge’s (ALJ) conclusion that an employer violated Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act (Act) by proposing contract language that would have allowed it to discipline employees for filing “baseless” grievances.

During negotiations for a successor collective bargaining agreement, the union’s chief steward filed numerous grievances that the employer viewed as meritless. To combat this activity, early in negotiations, the employer proposed language that would have permitted it to discipline, and potentially terminate, employees for filing “baseless, malicious, or harassing grievances.” Failing to appreciate the necessity to eliminate (in the employer counsel’s words) myriad “bulls*** grievances,” the union filed an unfair labor practice charge alleging that the mere proposal of this language independently violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, which prohibits employers from “interfer[ing] with, restrain[ing], or coerc[ing] employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed” in the Act.

The ALJ agreed with the union, finding that the proposal violated Section 8(a)(1) because it would interfere with employees’ rights by reasonably tending to discourage employees from filing grievances. The Board, rejecting the former Biden-era general counsel’s invitation to expand Board law, reversed the ALJ, stressing that the Act is intended to favor “uninhibited, robust, and wide-open debate” during contract negotiations and noting that neither the parties to the case nor the ALJ identified any precedent establishing that merely presenting a bargaining proposal can constitute an unlawful threat to interfere with protected concerted activity. Not surprisingly, Board member David Prouty (the lone Democrat) dissented, agreeing with the ALJ that the proposal and the employer’s statement during bargaining that it was necessary to reduce frivolous grievances objectively tended to discourage employees from engaging in protected concerted activity by filing grievances.

Key Takeaways for Employers

1. The Board’s majority declined to extend Section 8(a)(1) liability to the mere presentation of a bargaining proposal, even where the proposal would authorize discipline for grievance-related conduct.
2. The Board continues to give parties significant leeway to make aggressive and contentious proposals, even where those proposals involve restrictions on protected concerted activity.

BakerHostetler’s Labor Relations team continues to monitor developments in this area. Feel free to contact a member of the team if you have any questions.