A number of courts have also refused, on national labour policy grounds, to impose in-due oral agreements that undermine the written collective agreement. The pioneering case of this kind is Gatliff Coal Co. v. Cox, 152 F.2d 52 (6 cir. 1945), where the court put the Parol rule of evidence in the working context in order to exclude evidence of an oral agreement contrary to the terms of the written collective agreement. In this case, an incidental verbal agreement between Gatliff Coal and union officials allowed the company to pay lower wages than those set out in the collective agreement. In response to the employees` action, which were compensated at the rates agreed orally and not according to the terms prescribed in the written pact, the Tribunal found that the National Labor Relations Act clearly excluded the company`s appeal for a prior or simultaneous oral agreement amending the terms of the written collective agreement. See point 56 n. 1. In Houchens, for example, the union first informed the employer that „any proposal for a contract or recommendation requires the agreement of the employees.“ 375 F.2d to 209. When negotiators reached an agreement, the company announced it was waiting for the employees to agree.
At this stage, the union`s negotiators insisted that the company be able to implement the agreement without the workers` consent; The business has been pushed back; The Board of Directors found that the company had committed an unfair labour practice; the Court of Appeal imposed the injunction and stated: „The purpose of collective bargaining is to set wages, hours and working conditions through a trade agreement between the employer and its workers. This can only be done satisfactorily if a bargaining partner is chosen to represent all workers who have full authority to speak on their behalf. The objective of the statute would be largely thwarted if the results of the negotiations were to be presented to a workers` vote, with all the misunderstandings and cross-currents that would inevitably arise in such an election. 375 F.2d to 212, quoted by Darlington Veneer, 236 F.2d to 88. The reasons given in the Houchens and Darlington Veneer years are remarkably good in the opinion of my colleagues, except that the results are diametrically opposed. Id. at 72-73. Unlike the Bar, Mohr`s oral agreement was not hidden from EU membership. It was a purely peripheral issue with regard to the conditions of employment of students. Mohr was therefore allowed to supplement the terms and conditions of the sectoral collective agreement and adapt them to local conditions. Dissent recognizes that an agreement by an officer with no real or apparent authority is void under the law.