Still Striking After All These Years- What the Sixth Circuit’s Back-to-Back Rieth-Riley Decisions Mean for Employers

Why It Matters

Employers face heightened liability for unilateral labor actions and cannot sidestep bargaining obligations through procedural loopholes, reshaping union‑employer dynamics across the Sixth Circuit region.

Key Takeaways

• Sixth Circuit upheld NLRB findings of unfair labor practices.
• Unilateral wage hikes without bargaining violate NLRA despite Davis‑Bacon.
• Refusal‑to‑bargain strategy fails when based on decertification dismissal.
• Employers must give notice before any wage or benefit change.
• Cumulative unilateral actions can amount to withdrawal of union recognition.

Pulse Analysis

The Sixth Circuit’s twin decisions in the Rieth‑Riley saga send a clear signal to employers: the National Labor Relations Board’s unfair‑labor‑practice orders are not merely advisory, they are enforceable mandates. By rejecting the company’s claim that economic pressure or Davis‑Bacon obligations excused unilateral wage hikes, the court reinforced the NLRA’s core principle that any change to wages or benefits must be bargained with the certified union. This precedent tightens the legal leash on construction firms and other multi‑employer sectors that often cite external regulations to justify on‑the‑fly compensation adjustments.

Beyond the specific wage issue, the rulings dismantle a common tactical shortcut—refusing to bargain on the premise that a decertification petition was dismissed. The court held that such dismissals do not constitute a "bargaining‑unit determination" under § 9(d), meaning employers cannot invoke them to escape their collective‑bargaining duties. This clarification curtails a loophole that some companies have used to sidestep union negotiations, ensuring that the duty to bargain persists regardless of pending representation disputes.

For practitioners, the practical takeaways are straightforward. Companies must provide clear, advance notice of any proposed wage or benefit changes and engage the union in meaningful negotiations before implementation. Moreover, a pattern of unilateral moves—whether wage increases, benefit clawbacks, or lockouts—can collectively be interpreted as an intent to withdraw recognition, exposing firms to extended NLRB orders and potential damages. In an era where labor relations are increasingly scrutinized, the Sixth Circuit’s rulings underscore that litigation cannot replace good‑faith bargaining, and the cost of non‑compliance far outweighs the perceived benefits of unilateral action.