The Satori Case Study

In Peter Satori Co. the Board found that there was intent to avoid the reaching of an agreement because the employer "coupled a determination to yield nothing of substance to the Union with an attitude of offering its proposals on a take it-or-leave-it basis." In both cases the Board's reasoning was consistent in that it centred on whether the employer's firmness was intended to frustrate agreement. However, what constituted bad faith in the Satori case seems to be the very attitude which was condoned in the American Sanitary Wipers case and one is still unsure of the status given an adamant employer. Thus, while the Board seems to have no problem in reconciling the conflict in the Act in the reasoning it uses, it most certainly has encountered

It seems that if an employer would have long ago entered into an agreement had it not been for the impasse as to check-off he is not attempting to frustrate agreement. And if the union is not a fledging one whose existence depends on a check-off provision, the employer certainly cannot be accused of attempting to undermine the union.
Remedies for default in Check-Off
Where an employer is found guilty of bad faith bargaining because he has refused check-off with the purpose of frustrating any agreement, he is guilty of refusing to bargain, an unfair labour practice under section 8 (a) (5). The employer who persists in refusing to grant the dues check-off, although agreeing to bargain on the matter further, is oftentimes still found guilty of an unfair labour practice by the Board. The District of Columbia Circuit upheld the right of the Board to order an employer to accept a check-off proposal in United Steelworkers (H.K. Porter Co.) v.