1. Dana Corporation (I), 341 N.L.R.B No. 150, 2004 Should a collective bargaining relationship established pursuant to an agreement between a company and union under which the company will recognize the union if the union obtains authorization cards from a majority of employees be given “bar status” if the agreement was made prior to the union’s card campaign?

2. Dana Rationale for Review Order of Events –Precedent, order of events Card campaign and majority agreement to recognize on basis of card majority –Dana Facts, order of events Agreement to recognize on basis of card majority Card campaign and majority Other cases assume voluntary recognition should be given “bar status” –Implicitly, issue of “bar status” never raised Changing labor relations conditions –Increasing use of neutrality agreements

3. Dana Dissent Voluntary recognition long supported by Board decisions –Board has applied “bar status” to pre-card majority agreements –Post-card majority agreement not critical in cases where it occurred –“after-acquired” facility doctrine Encourages harmony and stability in labor relations –Permitting decertification petitions and elections will disrupt that harmony No compelling reason for review

4. Dana (II), JD–24-05 Did a pre-recognition letter of agreement (LOA) between the UAW and Dana constitute unlawful recognition of the union by Dana in violation of Sections 8(a)(1), 8(a)(2), and unlawful acceptance of recognition by the union in violation 8(b)(1) of the NLRA?

5. Dana (II) : ALJ Decision LOA not unlawful recognition –LOA does not include UAW right to adjust grievances Prohibition on change Terms and Conditions of emloyment (TCE) without bargaining wages, hours, pensions, vacations, grievances –LOA includes Length of potential agreement Interest arbitration to resolve dispute over contract neutrality –Dana and UAW may extend existing contracts to unrepresented facilities, so something less should be legal

6. Hyperlink DanaMetaldyne Amicus Briefs