DOCSLIB.ORG

Collective Bargaining Agreement

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Collective Bargaining Agreement ACLU of Connecticut acluct.org COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF HARTFORD CONNECTICUT AND THE HARTFORD POLICE UNION STRENGTH, LEADERSHIP & INTEGRITY JULY 1, 2010 to JUNE 30, 2016 2017_C_4447 ACLU of Connecticut acluct.org 2017_C_4448 ACLU of Connecticut acluct.org COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF HARTFORD CONNECTICUT AND THE HARTFORD POLICE UNION STRENGTH, LEADERSHIP JULY 1, 2010 to JUNE 30, 2016 2017_C_4449 ACLU of Connecticut acluct.org 2017_C_4450 ACLU of Connecticut acluct.org Table of Contents PREAMBLE 1 ARTICLE I RIGHTS AND RECOGNITION 1-3 Section 1.1 Recognition 1 Section 1.2 Union Security 1 Section 1.3 Check Off 1 Section 1.4 Deduction Period 2 Section 1.5 Management Rights 2 Section 1.6 No Strike: No Lock-Out 2 Section 1.7 No Discrimination 2 Section 1.8 Definition 2 Section 1.9 Exclusions 2 Section 1.10 Probation Time 3 ARTICLE II GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE 3-5 Section 2,1 3 Section 2.2 4 Section 2,3 4 Section 2.4 5 Section 2.5 5 Section 2.6 5 ARTICLE III PERSONNEL, PAY AND BENEFITS 5-17 Section 3.1 Classification and Pay 5 Section 3.2 Longevity Pay 5 Section 3.3 Personnel 6 Section 3.4 Prior Benefits and Practices 6 Section 3.5 Insurances 6 Section 3.6 Pensions 10 Section 3.6 (a) 12 Section 3.7 Uniforms 16 Section 3.8 Seniority 16 Section 3.9 Motor Vehicles or Vessels 17 Section 3.10 Personal Property 17 Section 3,11 Funeral Costs 17 Section 3.12 Residence 17 ARTICLE IV HOURS AND OVERTIME 18-23 Section 4.1 Hours of Work 18 Section 4.2 Overtime Pay 20 Section 4.3 Private Jobs 21 Section 4.4 School Jobs 23 ARTICLE V HOLIDAYS AND LEAVE 23-29 Section 5.1 Holidays 23 Section 5.2 Vacations 24 Section 5.3 Sick Leave 24 Section 5,3 (a) Sick Leave Bank Donations 25 Section 5.3 (b) 26 Section 5.4 Personal Leave for Perfect Attendance 26 2017_C_4451 ACLU of Connecticut acluct.org Section 5.5 Compensation for Injuries and Disease 27 Section 5.6 Funeral Leave 27 Section 5.7 Jury Pay 27 Section 5.8 Pregnancy Leave 27 Section 5.9 Childrearing Leave 27 Section 5.9 (a) Family Medical Leave 28 Section 5.10 Leaves Of Absence Without Pay 29 ARTICLE VI GENERAL PROVISIONS 29-31 Section 6.1 Union Representatives 29 Section 6.2 Access to Premises 30 Section 6.3 Bulletin Board 30 Section 6.4 Seniority List 30 Section 6.5 Health and Safety Responsibilities - Safety Committee 30 Section 6.6 Management-Union Informational Meeting 30 Section 6.7 Union Management Physical and Mental Fitness Committee 30 Section 6.8 Compensatory Time for Meetings 31 Section 6.9 Union President Detached Duty 31 Section 6.10 Printing of Agreement 31 Section 6,11 Appearance Standards 31 ARTICLE VII COVENANTS 31-32 Section 7.1 Local Ordinances 31 Section 7.2 Saving Clause 31 Section 7.3 Effective Dates 32 Section 7.4 Duration 32 Section 7.5 Entire Agreement 32 APPENDIX A EMPLOYEE RIGHTS 33-35 APPENDIX B CLASSIFICATION AND PAY RANGES 36-44 APPENDIX C HEALTH BENEFITS/COVERAGES MATRIX 45-49 APPENDIX D LAYOFF 50 APPENDIX E OUTLINE OF PENSION PROVISIONS FOR POLICE OFFICERS CITY OF HARTFORD UNDER MERF 51-56 APPENDIX F PROMOTIONAL TEST SCHEDULE 57 APPENDIX G BENEFIT OF SURVIVORS OF OFFICER(S) KILLED IN THE LINE OF DUTY 58 APPENDIX II PERFORMANCE APPRAISALS 59 APPENDIX I DEPUTY CHIEFS 60 APPENDIX J PSYCHOLOGICAL EVALUATION 61 APPENDIX K FOUR TEN-HOUR DAY WORK SCHEDULE 62 ii 2017_C_4452 ACLU of Connecticut acluct.org APPENDIX L ASSIGNMENT OF STATE POLICE OFFICERS 63 APPENDIX M DETENTION STAFFING 64 APPENDIX N DRUG TESTING 65-7'7 APPENDIX 0 PENSION BENEFIT EXTENSION 78 APPENDIX P CIVILIAN PERSONNEL 79 APPENDIX Q ASSISTANT ANIMAL CONTROL OFFICER 80-81 APPENDIX R CANINE PROGRAM 82-83 APPENDIX S FIELD TRAINING OFFICERS 84 iii 2017_C_4453 ACLU of Connecticut acluct.org 2017_C_4454 ACLU of Connecticut acluct.org AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT AND THE HARTFORD POLICE UNION PREAMBLE The following Agreement, including its attachments and appendices, by and between the City of Hartford, Connecticut, hereinafter referred to as the City, and the Hartford Police Union, hereafter refened to as the Union, is recorded in written form to meet the requirements as set forth in Section 7-470 (c) in the Municipal Employee Relations Act of the General Statutes of Connecticut. This Agreement is designed to provide for an equitable and peaceful procedure for the resolution of differences in accordance with the grievance procedure specified herein, in order to maintain and promote a harmonious relationship between the Union and the City and to encourage a more effective police service in the public interest. ARTICLE I RIGHTS AND RECOGNITION Section 1.1 Recognition The City recognizes the Hartford Police Union as the sole and exclusive bargaining agent pursuant to certifications granted by the Connecticut State Board of Labor Relations, dated February 17,1984 and August 14, 1992 (ME 14,689), for the purpose of collective bargaining under provisions of the Municipal Employee Relations Act. The Union recognizes the Mayor and/or his/her designated representative or representatives as the sole and exclusive representative of the City of Hartford, Connecticut, for the purpose of collective bargaining. Section 1.2 Union Security All employees in the unit who are Union members on the effective date of this Agreement, or who afterward join, must remain members to the extent of paying weekly dues uniformly required for all members for the duration of this Agreement as a condition of continued employment. All employees in the unit who are not Union members on the effective date of this Agreement shall, as a condition of continued employment, commencing sixty (60) days after the effective date of this Agreement, pay to the Union each week a service charge as a contribution toward the cost of administration of this Agreement. Effective January 1, 1988, probationary employees shall be required to comply with this provision upon commencement of their probationary period. The amount of such service charge shall be equivalent to the amount uniformly required of all those who become members of the Union. The Union agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the City for any loss or damages arising from the operation of this Section. Section 1.3 Check Off The City agrees to deduct from the pay of all employees covered by this Agreement, who authorize such deductions from their wages in writing, such membership dues, initiation fees and/or assessments as may be uniformly assessed by the Union. Said dues are subject to upward or downward change exclusively by the Union. When an employee does not have sufficient money due him/her after deductions have been made for pension or other deductions required by law, union dues for such deduction periods shall be deducted in the first dues deduction period in which the employee has sufficient funds clue him. Page 1 2017_C_4455 ACLU of Connecticut acluct.org It is agreed that neither any employee nor the Union shall have any claim against the City for any such deductions made or not made, as the case may be, unless a claim of error is made in writing to the City within sixty (GO) calendar days after the date such deductions were or should have been made. The obligation of the City for funds actually deducted under this Section terminates upon delivery of the deductions so made to the person authorized by the Union to receive such amounts from the City. The Union agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the City for any loss or damages arising from the operation of this Section. Section 1.4 Deduction Period Union dues and any initiation fees, assessments or their equivalents shall be deducted on a weekly basis and shall be remitted to the Union in the form of a check together with an alphabetized list of names of employees from whose wages such deductions have been made, as soon as practical but not later than nine (9) days from the date said deductions were taken. Section 1,5 Management Rights Except as specifically abridged or modified by any provision of this Agreement, the City will continue to have, whether exercised or not, all of the rights, powers and authority heretofore existing, including but not limited to the following: Determine the standards of services to be offered by the Police Department; determine the standards of selection for employment; direct its employees; take disciplinary action; relieve its employees from duty because of lack of work or for other legitimate reasons; issue rules and regulations; maintain the efficiency of governmental operations; determine the methods, means and personnel by which the City's operations are to be conducted; determine the content of job classifications; exercise complete control and discretion over its organization and the technology of performing its work; and fulfill all of its legal responsibilities. The above rights, responsibility and prerogatives are inherent in the Court of Common Council and the Mayor by virtue of statutory and charter provisions and cannot be subject to any grievance or arbitration proceeding except as specifically provided for in this Agreement. Section 1.6 No Strike: No Lock-Out The Union agrees that it will not call or support any strike, work stoppage, work slow down or any other action against the City that would impede the proper functioning of the City government at any time. The City agrees that it will not lock out any employees at any time.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Governing Body 323Rd Session, Geneva, 12–27 March 2015 GB.323/INS/5/Appendix III
    INTERNATIONAL LABOUR OFFICE Governing Body 323rd Session, Geneva, 12–27 March 2015 GB.323/INS/5/Appendix III Institutional Section INS Date: 13 March 2015 Original: English FIFTH ITEM ON THE AGENDA The Standards Initiative – Appendix III Background document for the Tripartite Meeting on the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), in relation to the right to strike and the modalities and practices of strike action at national level (revised) (Geneva, 23–25 February 2015) Contents Page Introduction ....................................................................................................................................... 1 Decision on the fifth item on the agenda: The standards initiative: Follow-up to the 2012 ILC Committee on the Application of Standards .................. 1 Part I. ILO Convention No. 87 and the right to strike ..................................................................... 3 I. Introduction ................................................................................................................ 3 II. The Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87) ......................................................................... 3 II.1. Negotiating history prior to the adoption of the Convention ........................... 3 II.2. Related developments after the adoption of the Convention ........................... 5 III. Supervision of obligations arising under or relating to Conventions ........................
    [Show full text]
  • National Master Ups Freight Agreement
    NATIONAL MASTER UPS FREIGHT AGREEMENT For the Period: August 1, 2013 2018 through July 31, 2018 2023 covering: The parties reserve the right to correct inadvertent errors and omissions. Where no reference is made to a specific Article or Section thereof, such Article and Section are to continue as in the current Master Agreement, as applied and interpreted during the life of such Agreement. Additions and new language are bold and underlined. Language from the prior Master Agreement that is being deleted is struck through. UPS Freight, herein referred to as the “Employer” and/or employees who are not members of the Local Union and all “Company”, and the TEAMSTERS NATIONAL UPS FREIGHT employees who are hired hereafter, shall become and remain NEGOTIATING COMMITTEE, hereinafter referred to as members in good standing of the Local Union as a condition TNUPSFNC, representing Local Unions affiliated with the of employment on and after the thirty-first (31st) day following International Brotherhood of Teamsters. the beginning of their employment, or on and after the thirty- first (31st) day following the effective date of this subsection, or ARTICLE 1 the date of this Agreement, whichever is the later. An employee PARTIES TO THE AGREEMENT who has failed to acquire, or thereafter maintain, membership in the Union, as herein provided, shall be terminated seventy-two Section 3. Transfer of Company Title or Interest (72) hours after the Employer has received written notice from In the event the Company is sold or any part of its operations covered an authorized representative of the Local Union, certifying that by this Agreement is transferred, the Company shall give notice to the membership has been, and is continuing to be offered to such Local UnionTNUPSFNC to the extent required by applicable law.
    [Show full text]
  • Why Organize and Affiliate Others?
    Affiliate Organizing Committee Handbook Updated March, 2016 WHY ORGANIZE AND AFFILIATE OTHERS? ........................................................1 - 2 CSO CODE OF CONDUCT ...................................................................................3 INTRODUCTION TO CSO/NSO ...........................................................................4 BENEFITS OF CSO MEMBERSHIP AND LOCAL AFFILIATION .................................5 HOW MEMBERS PARTICIPATE IN CSO/NSO ........................................................6 - 7 ELIGIBILITY, DUES AND STANDARDS FOR AFFILIATION ....................................8 - 9 REPRESENTING A BRAND-NEW BARGAINING UNIT .......................................... 10 - 15 BARGAINING CSO AGREEMENTS .......................................................................16 ONCE THE CONTRACT HAS BEEN BARGAINED ...................................................17 APPENDIX A – AUTHORIZATION FORM ..............................................................19 APPENDIX B – RECOGNITION REQUEST ............................................................20 APPENDIX C – RECOGNITION AGREEMENT ........................................................21 APPENDIX D – NLRB RECOGNITION PETITION ...................................................22 APPENDIX E – CBC GOALS AND SETTLEMENT STANDARDS ........................23 - 31 CSO MEMBERSHIP FORM ..............................................................................33 1 CSO Affiliate Organizing Handbook Welcome to the California Staff Organization (CSO).
    [Show full text]
  • GLOSSARY of COLLECTIVE BARGAINING TERMS and SELECTED LABOR TOPICS
    GLOSSARY of COLLECTIVE BARGAINING TERMS and SELECTED LABOR TOPICS ABEYANCE – The placement of a pending grievance (or motion) by mutual agreement of the parties, outside the specified time limits until a later date when it may be taken up and processed. ACTION - Direct action occurs when any group of union members engage in an action, such as a protest, that directly exposes a problem, or a possible solution to a contractual and/or societal issue. Union members engage in such actions to spotlight an injustice with the goal of correcting it. It further mobilizes the membership to work in concerted fashion for their own good and improvement. ACCRETION – The addition or consolidation of new employees or a new bargaining unit to or with an existing bargaining unit. ACROSS THE BOARD INCREASE - A general wage increase that covers all the members of a bargaining unit, regardless of classification, grade or step level. Such an increase may be in terms of a percentage or dollar amount. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE – An agent of the National Labor Relations Board or the public sector commission appointed to docket, hear, settle and decide unfair labor practice cases nationwide or statewide in the public sector. They also conduct and preside over formal hearings/trials on an unfair labor practice complaint or a representation case. AFL-CIO - The American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations is the national federation of unions in the United States. It is made up of fifty-six national and international unions, together representing more than 12 million active and retired workers.
    [Show full text]
  • ECCFA Negotiation Glossary
    ECCFA Negotiation Glossary Bargaining unit The ECCFA. Those employees and job categories that will be covered by the provisions of the contract. Often, not all employees at a work site will be included in the bargaining unit. Supervisors, typically, are excluded by law. Bargaining committee The union representatives who meet with management representatives to negotiate a contract. The committee is often elected by the union membership, may include a union staff person, and speaks for the membership during negotiations. This committee may also draft the contract proposals and counter-proposals. Also known as Negotiation Committee or Team. Collective bargaining The process whereby union and management representatives meet in good faith and attempt to come to mutual agreement on conditions of employment. In most situations, management is required by law to engage in good-faith collective bargaining with a union that has been certified as representing that organization's employees. (See Negotiations) Contract A written document that spells out the terms and conditions of employment as well as the rights and responsibilities of employer and employee. This document applies to a specified group of employees for a specified period of time. Adherence to the terms of the contract is enforceable under the provisions of the National Labor Relations Act or appropriate public sector law. Negotiations The process of discussion between the employer and the union for purposes of coming to an agreement on the provisions of a contract governing employment conditions and the rights and responsibilities of labor and management. Chief Negotiators Each side will have a chief negotiator who is charged with the authority to speak for his/her side and to sign agreements resulting from the negotiaiton process.
    [Show full text]
  • BRINGING the WORKERS' RIGHTS BACK IN? the Discourses And
    Simon Pahle Philosophiae Doctor (P Department of International EnvironmentNorwegian and Development University Studies, of Life SciencesNoragric • Universitetet for miljø- og biovitenskap ISBN 978-82-575-0980-4 ISSN 1503-1667 BRINGING THE WORKERS’ RIGHTS BACK IN? The Discourses and Politics of fortifying h D) Thesis 2011:16 Core Labour Standards through a Labour- Trade Linkage Simon Pahle Philosophiae Doctor (P h D) Thesis 2011:16 Norwegian University of Life Sciences NO–1432 Ås, Norway Phone +47 64 96 50 00 www.umb.no, e-mail: [email protected] BRINGING THE WORKERS’ RIGHTS BACK IN? The Discourses and Politics of fortifying Core Labour Standards through a Labour-Trade Linkage Philosophiae Doctor (PhD) Thesis Simon Pahle Department of International Environment and Development Studies (Noragric) Norwegian University of Life Sciences (UMB) Ås 2011 Thesis number 2011:16 ISBN 978-82-575-0980-4 ISSN 1503-1667 TIL MATHIAS & GABRIEL (Alt har sin pris) BRINGING THE WORKERS’ RIGHTS BACK IN? The Discourses and Politics of fortifying Core Labour Standards through a Labour-Trade Linkage ABSTRACT Throughout the 1990s the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU) conducted a campaign to convince states to institute a linkage between the international labour and trade regimes (also dubbed a social clause): Trading rights granted to countries qua members of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) would be made conditional on their compliance with International Labour Organisation (ILO) core labour standards – i.e., their upholding of the rights that enable workers ‘to claim a fair share of the wealth they have helped to generate’. The proposal was premised on the claim that increasing global competition confers commercial advantages on producers that undercut labour standards, and that this incites a regulatory race to the bottom.
    [Show full text]
  • Union Issues in the Solid Waste Industry
    archive LittlerThis article recently appeared in the National Solid Wastes Management Association, September 2005. Union Issues in the Solid Waste Industry by Ronald J. Holland and Philip Paturzo Summary sentatives of employees for collec- rates above the national average. In tive bargaining purposes, and the contrast, states in the Southeast and Union membership in America has bargaining process itself. It also Southwest tended to have far less been in a downward spiral for the addresses recent strikes in the in- union density. past 50 years. However, this does dustry and the ways employers can not mean that the private solid prepare in advance to reduce the Given the steady decline in union waste industry can rest easy. Be- impact of a strike. Finally, the pa- membership throughout the coun- cause the type of work performed per looks at management initiatives try, the private solid waste industry by industry employees cannot be that should be used to reduce the should not be concerned about new sent abroad to reduce labor costs possibility that employees will seek organizing efforts, right? Wrong. and the nature of the business is union representation. recession-resistant, unions recently The Teamsters boasts that it rep- have targeted solid waste compa- Background resents over 25,000 private solid nies. Specifically, the International waste industry workers.2 And it is Brotherhood of Teamsters, the larg- Labor unions have existed in not content to stop there. In 2004, est union player in the field, has America since the 1800s. By the Teamsters President James P. Hoffa publicly vowed to unionize private mid-1950s, at the height of the la- said: “It is the priority of the Team- solid waste companies nationwide bor movement, roughly 35 percent sters Union to bring justice to solid and has expended significant re- of the American workforce was waste workers throughout the coun- sources to achieve that goal.
    [Show full text]
  • 1.3 Recent Board & Department of Labor Activity on Union Organizing
    ABOUT THE AUTHORS Michael G. Pedhirney is a shareholder in the San Francisco office of Littler Mendelson, P.C., the largest U.S.-based law firm exclusively devoted to representing management in labor and employment law. Michael focuses on the representation of management in a broad range of labor and employment law matters, particularly collective bargaining and matters before the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). In addition to appearing in state and federal courts and before the NLRB, Michael also represents employers in collective bargaining and handles arbitrations and mediations. Karen A. Sundermier, in her current role as a Knowledge Management Counsel for Littler, helped design Littler LaborSmart™, an interactive, online tool that allows in-house legal and labor relations professionals to access all of their company’s collective bargaining agreements in a structured, searchable database. The tool allows companies to swiftly identify and compare language for contract administration, grievance, and negotiation purposes. Prior to turning her focus to offering strategic and innovative legal service solutions, Karen represented employers in a broad spectrum of employment and labor matters and assisted employers with representation elections and collective bargaining as a Littler associate and in- house employment counsel. She currently serves as an editor for Littler’s publications on labor relations topics. © 2018 LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. i COVERAGE Scope of Discussion. This publication explains union election procedures and the NLRB’s role in overseeing elections. It also explores NLRB precedent on objectionable conduct by different parties that may result in election results being overturned. Also included is information concerning actions employers are permitted to take and are prohibited from taking in advance of and in response to union organizing drives.
    [Show full text]
  • Collective Bargaining Agreement
    COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT BETWEEN UNITED GOVERNMENT SECURITY OFFICERS OF AMERICA, INTERNATIONAL UNION AND UNITED GOVERNMENT SECURITY OFFICERS OF AMERICA LOCAL 161 AND AKAL SECURITY, INCORPORATED July 1,2011 through September 30, 2014 UGSOA IU, UGSOA Local 161 with Akal, 07.01.2011-09.30.2014 MISSION STATEMENT COURT SECURITY OFFICER • Ensure the safety of US Federal Courts, Protected Government facilities and their employees against unauthorized, illegal and potentially life-threatening activities. • Cadres of qualified and highly skilled officers perform this mission. CSO Goal & Vision Goal To conduct ourselves in a manner as to bring credit upon the Court Security Officer and Special Security Officer program and the United States Marshal Service at all times. Vision To be alert to all situations and events that take place and take necessary measures to prevent dangerous situations from happening. UGSOA IU, UGSOA Local 161 with Akal, 07.0l.2011-09.30.2014 2 ARTICLE 1 GENERAL PROVISIONS SECTION 1.1 PARTIES This agreement is entered into by and between Akal Security, Incorporated a New Mexico corporation, hereinafter referred to as the "Company" or "Employer", United Government Security Officers of America, International Union (UGSOA, IV), and UGSOA Local 161 (hereinafter referred to as the Union). The Company recognizes the Union as the sole and exclusive bargaining representative, of the bargaining unit for the purpose of collective bargaining as defined in the National Labor Relations Act. This agreement shall be binding upon all parties, their successor's and assigns. In the event of the sale or transfer of the business of the employer, or any part thereof, the purchaser or transferee shall be bound by this agreement.
    [Show full text]
  • 2013: 880 ULP Ex Dir Decision on Merits ILA 1694 1 V DSPC Work
    STATE of DELAWARE PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD INTERNATIONAL LONGSHOREMEN’S ASSOCIATION, ) LOCAL 1694-1, AFL-CIO, ) ) Charging Party, ) ULP 12-11-880 ) v. ) Decision on the Merits ) DIAMOND STATE PORT CORPORATION, ) ) Respondent. ) Appearances Bernard N. Katz, Esq., Meranze, Katz, Gaudioso & Newlin, P.C. for ILA Local 1694-1 Scott A. Holt, Esq, Young, Conaway, Stargatt & Taylor, for Diamond State Port Corporation BACKGROUND The State of Delaware is a public employer within the meaning of 19 Del. C. §1302(p) of the Public Employment Relations Act, 19 Del.C. Chapter 13 (“PERA”). Diamond State Port Corporation (DSPC) is an agency of the State. DSPC operates the Port of Wilmington which is located in Wilmington, Delaware. The International Longshoremen’s Association, Local 1694-1, (“ILA”) is an employee representative within the meaning of 19 Del.C. §1302(i). By and through its affiliated Local 1694-1, the ILA is the exclusive bargaining representative of a bargaining unit of DSPC employees within the meaning of 19 Del.C. §1302(j). ILA Local 1694-1 and DSPC are parties to a current collective bargaining agreement 5805 which has a term of October 1, 2010 through September 30, 2013. On or about November 16, 2012, the ILA filed an unfair labor practice charge with the Public Employment Relations Board (“PERB”) alleging conduct by the DSPC in violation of §1307(a)(1), (3), (4), (5), (6) and (7).1 Specifically, the Charge alleges “sometime in 2010 or early 2011, the employer arranged to have certain bargaining unit work performed by a private contractor on the premises of Diamond State Port Corporation which was bargaining unit work.” Charge ¶4.
    [Show full text]
  • Black Trade Unions, Workplace Forums, and the Struggle for Democracy in South Africa
    THE RIGHT OF REVOLUTION: BLACK TRADE UNIONS, WORKPLACE FORUMS, AND THE STRUGGLE FOR DEMOCRACY IN SOUTH AFRICA C. Matthew Smith* We know through painful experience that freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed. Martin Luther King, Jr.' I. INTRODUCTION In many ways, the story of labor relations in South Africa has run lockstep with the story of apartheid.2 The earliest of its labor laws were enacted for the benefit of white laborers only-and worked to the detriment of black laborers The Mines and Works Act of 1911, for example, established quotas for black and white workers4 and reserved certain better paying jobs in the mines for whites only.' That would only be the beginning. The Industrial Conciliation Act of 1924 followed the bloody Rand Revolt,6 a three-month strike to protest the lowering * J.D. 2000, University of Georgia. 'MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR., LETTER FROM THE BIRMINGHAM CITY JAIL 8 (Harper Collins 1994) (1963). 2 See Stephen H. Jacobson, Comment, Collective Bargainingin Undemocratic Regimes: FrancoistSpain and ContemporarySouth Africa, 12 COMP. LAB. L.J. 214, 225 (1991); Karon M. Coleman, Comment, South Africa: The UnfairLabor Practiceand the IndustrialCourt, 12 COMP. LAB. L.J. 178, 178 (1991); Bob Hepple, Trade Unions and Democracy in Transitional Societies: Reflections on Russia andSouth Africa, in HUMAN RIGHTS AND LABOR LAW: ESSAYS FOR PAUL O'HIGGINS 56, 56 (K.D. Ewing et al. eds., 1994); Mark Mitchell & Dave Russell, Black Unions and Political Change in South Africa, in CAN SOUTH AFRICA SURVIvE?: FIvE MINUTES TO MIDNIGHT 231,231 (John D.
    [Show full text]
  • Picketing in the New Economy
    PICKETING IN THE NEW ECONOMY Hiba Hafiz† The rise of the contingent and gig economies and of outsourced and subcontracted work has left many workers with insufficient bargaining power to successfully negotiate collective bargaining agreements with their direct employers. This problem is exacerbated by a statutory ban on worker picketing and boycotts of non-employers, or “secondaries,” even where those employers collude with direct employers on wage-fixing or the suppression of union activity; have monopsony power over direct employers; or have substantial indirect control over worker wages through contractual arrangements. This Article is a crucial intervention in modernizing the labor law on worker picketing in the New Economy. It first outlines the current distinction between direct and “secondary” employers under the National Labor Relation Act’s secondary picketing ban. It then provides an overview of New Economy work arrangements and developments in economic theory necessary for updating the law on this distinction and for developing the economic expertise of judicial and administrative labor regulation. The Article then proposes unified principles for measuring labor law’s success under New Economy work structures. These principles align expressive and associational values with achieving economically efficient and distributional outcomes for labor and capital. On this foundation, the Article assesses current law on the primary-secondary distinction and finds it deficient under these principles. It puts forward instead, an economic effects–based standard that would make a defense to secondary picketing available where employees can demonstrate, through economic evidence, that a secondary target—whether through contractual agreements with a direct employer, monopsony power, or oligopsonistic collusion—has sufficient market power to determine the wages or working conditions of picketing workers.
    [Show full text]