Collective Bargaining Agreement Translate

by admin on December 5th, 2020

Exclusive Representation A majority of workers in a bargaining unit must appoint a representative with the exclusive or exclusive right to represent them in negotiations with the employer`s representative (29 U.S.C.A. The employer is not required to negotiate with an unauthorized representative (p. 158[5]). Once a valid representative has been selected, non-unionized workers are also bound by the collective agreement and cannot negotiate individual contracts with the employer (J. I. Case Co. /NLRB, 321 U.S. 332, 64 p. Ct.

576, 88 L Ed. 762 [1944]). Accordingly, the employer should not extend different conditions to workers in the bargaining unit, even if these conditions are more favourable, unless the collective agreement contemplates flexible terms (Emporium Capwell Co. v. Western Addition Community Organization, 420 U.S. 50, 95 P. Ct. 977, 43 L Ed. 2d 12 [1975]). Unilateral Changes During the period when a collective agreement comes into force, the employer cannot change the working conditions that are the subject of mandatory bargaining without prior negotiations with the union (29 U.S.C.A. Even after the expiry of the collective agreement, the employer must maintain the status quo and not unilaterally change the mandatory bargaining partners until the parties are deadlocked (Louisiana Dock Co.

/NLRB, 909 F.2d 281 [7. Cir. This prohibition against unilateral amendments is continued even though the employer disputes that the union is the exclusive representative (Livingston Pipe – Tube v. NLRB, 987 F.2d 422 [7. Cir. 1993]; NLRB v. Parents – Friends of the Specialized Living Center, 879 F.2d 1442 [7. Cir. 1989]). As soon as negotiations between the parties “exhaust the prospect of an agreement” in good faith, the parties are deadlocked and the implementation of unilateral changes in working conditions does not constitute an unfair labour practice (NLRB v. Plainville Ready Concrete Co., 44 F.3d 1320 [6 cr.

1995]; United Paperworkers International Union v. NLRB, 981 F.2d 861 [6. Cir. 1992]; Southwest Forest Industry v. NLRB, 841 F.2d 270 [9. Cir. 1988]). Although most decisions made by an employer concern workers, not all of them are parties to the bargaining process. Some decisions, such as advertising and product choice, are so indirectly related to the working relationship and have such a small impact on the working relationship that they are almost certainly only generous bargaining partners. Other decisions, such as hiring, firing and operating rules, are so directly relevant to the employment relationship that they are almost certainly bargaining partners. Other decisions are also not related to the working relationship, but have a significant impact on the working relationship and are therefore difficult to characterize as generous or obligatory bargaining topics (First National Maintenance Corp.

v. NLRB, 452 U.S. 666, 101 P. Ct. 2573, 69 L.

From → Uncategorized

Comments are closed.