« 11/19/2004 | Main | 12/03/2004 »
11/26/2004
by Ross Runkel at LawMemo
NLRB Law Memo 11/26/2004
by LawMemo.Com - First in Employment Law
NLRB General Counsel Report on Recent Case Developments.
This report by the General Counsel is devoted almost entirely to a discussion of cases involving neutrality agreements, including comments on the pending case of Dana Corp and Metaldyne Corp. It also includes a case involving employer speech about an incumbent union to new hires.
NLRB General Counsel - Advice Memoranda - 5 cases
Auto Workers (Dana Corp) (7-CC-1786) October 12, 2004.
The nation-wide collective bargaining agreement between the Auto Workers (UAW) and the Big 3 (Ford, GM, DaimlerChrysler) contains a "good citizenship" provision requiring automakers to advise their suppliers that the Big 3 prefers suppliers that are "good corporate citizens" and abide by state and federal labor laws, and that the Big 3 will not refuse to deal with suppliers that do not oppose unionization. The National Right To Work Foundation alleged that this provision, on its face or as applied, requires suppliers, as a condition of doing business with the Big 3, to enter into neutrality agreements with the UAW in violation of sections 8(e) and 8((b)(4). The General Counsel found these previsions were not facially unlawful and that there was no probative evidence that the provisions were enforced in a manner that violates Section 8(e).
***
Food & Commercial Workers Local 120 (Wal-Mart Stores) (32-CB-5757-1) October 13, 2004.
The Union did not violate the Act by filing a class action lawsuit against the employer for alleged violation of California wage laws. The "novel contention" that the lawsuit had an unlawful objective is without merit, and there was no evidence that the lawsuit was filed with a retaliatory motive.
***
Local 32b-32j, SEIU (Allied Properties) (29-CB-12639) October 14, 2004.
The Union did not violate the Act by filing a state court lawsuit seeking to require the purchaser of a business to hire the employees of the seller, pursuant to the New York City Displaced Building Service Workers Protection Act. Although it is possible that the lawsuit is preempted, that does not make it an unfair labor practice. The lawsuit was not retaliatory and did not have a reasonable tendency to restrain or coerce Section 7 rights.
***
Local 155, UAW (Detroit Heading) (7-CB-14350) October 13, 2004.
Following bargaining, the employer unilaterally implemented its final offer, which contained a union security clause that required employees to "make application for membership." This was not an unlawful union security clause because it does not require anything more than "financial core" membership.
***
UNITE (H&M) (2-CP-1040) January 21, 2004.
The General Counsel concluded that the union violated Section 8(b)(7)(C) by engaging in organizational and recognitional picketing at the employer's warehouses and retail stores for longer than 30 days without filing a timely election petition.
|
|
Editor: Ross Runkel, Professor of Law Emeritus. email Ross@LawMemo.Com, Phone 503-399-8028. Copyright LawMemo, Inc.
|
Home | Free Trial | Products & Prices
| Feeds
| Caselaw Database
| Sample
EEOC
| NLRB
| Nat'l Arbitration Ctr
| Supreme Court
| Articles
| Lawyers
Employment Law
Blog | Arbitration Blog
| Employment Law 101
Employment Law Memo | NLRB Law Memo | Arbitration Law Memo
