DOCSLIB.ORG

BARGAINING the EIGHTIES a and A

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

CAMPus· BARGAINING IN THE EIGHTIES A Retrospective and a Prospective Look Proceedings Eighth Annual Conference April 1980 AARON LEVENSTEIN, Editor JOEL M. DOUGLAS, Director ~ National Center for the Study of • Collective Bargaining in Higher Education 0 ~ Baruch College- CUNY CAMPUS BARGAINING IN THE EIGHTIES A Retrospective and a Prospective Look Proceedings Eighth Annual Conference April 1980 AARON LEVENSTEIN, Editor JOEL M. DOUGLAS, Director ~ National Center for the Study of • 0 • Collective Bargaining in Higher Education ~~,,,, Baruch College-CUNY TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1. Joel M. Douglas - Introduction ............................ 5 2. Joel Segall - Welcoming Address . .. 11 3. T. Edward Hollander and Lawrence R. Marcus - The Economic Environment in the Eighties ..................................... 12 4. Gerie Bledsoe - The Economic Environment in the Eighties - The Necessity for Joint Action ....................................... 1 9 5. Aaron Levenstein - The Legal Environment: The Yeshiva Decision ................................. 24 6. Joseph M. Bress - The Legal Environment in the Eighties - The Agency Shop . ..... 39 7. John Silber - Collective Bargaining m Higher Education: Expectations and Realities - A University President's Viewpoint ........................................ 49 8. Margaret K. Chandler and Daniel Julius - Rights Issues: A Scramble for Power? ........................................ 58 9. Jerome Medalie - Faculty Relations in Non-unionized Institutions ........................... 65 I 0. Ildiko Knott - Union Accountability: The Duty of Fair Representation ......................... 72 11. Thomas Mannix - The California Experience: Prototype of the Eighties? ............................. 83 12. Robert Grant - New Techniques of Conflict Resolution: Interest Arbitration in Iowa .................... 91 13. Esther Liebert - Faculty Accountability - Reality or Fantasy? ................................. I 03 14. Robert Birnbaum - Bargaining and Conflict Management: New Directions for Academic Negotiations . ................ 121 15. Benjamin Wolf - The Gray Area Between Due Process and Academic Judgment ..................... 130 1. INTRODUCTION This volume contains the prepared papers that were presented at the Eighth Annual Conference of the National Center which met shortly after the Supreme Court handed down its decision in the Yeshiva case. The fact that faculty in "mature" private institutions deemed to be "managerial" had lost the protec­ tions of the National Labor Relations Act was the paramount development under discussion. Indeed, it seemed to push all other issues out of the limelight. The arguments of both sides had already been explored in depth at the Seventh Annual Conference when counsel for the University and for the Faculty Association summarized their briefs and rehearsed the oral argument they were later to give the Supreme Court. Further analysis had been provided by Woodley Osborne, counsel for the American Association of University Professors. (See Landmarks in Collective Bargaining in Higher Education, proceedings of the Seventh Annual Conference of the National Center for the Study of Collective Bargaining in Higher Education, Baruch College, April 1979, pp. 18-46.) The participants in the 1980 Conference had before them the special analysis of the Yeshiva decision that had been prepared by Aaron Levenstein and re­ leased by the National Center only a few weeks before the opening session was gavelled to order. Since this document provided a background for much of the discussion that ensued, it is reproduced at the appropriate place in these Proceedings. Design of the Conference The objective, as indicated by the over-all title of this volume, was to explore the prospects for campus bargaining in the '80s, and to provide a retrospective and prospective look. That could be achieved only by examining the trends in two spheres: (1) the economic environment that is shaping up in the period ahead, especially as it affects higher education; and (2) the legal environment being created by the courts, by the NLRB, and the state PERBs, and by the evolving pattern of collective bargaining agreements. There was virtual unanimity that lean years are ahead. None suggested that the hardships would lessen the frictions between administration and faculty. As the old Swedish proverb has it, "When the feedbox is empty, the horses will bite each other." Even so, there was a growing preoccupation with the question of whether academics in general could influence public opinion to a greater acceptance of the importance of higher education - an area in which some joint action could conceivably be undertaken by "labor" and "management." Immediate Issues Nothing that is likely to happen under the rubric of cooperation, however, will erase the concern over immediate issues raised at the bargaining table, such as the agency shop and the division of authority between administration and faculty in the making of decisions that affect the institution. The participants heard the view of one university president on how history has affected the role of faculty vis-a-vis the president. 5 In smaller group sessions, the conferees pondered such matters as the status of management rights versus faculty rights; the evolving concept of union ac­ countability flowing from the duty of fair representation; and the responsibility of administration for clarifying, communicating and implementing standards of performance for the individual faculty member. With an awareness that the economic constraints were likely to make the bargaining process more acerbic, attention was given to new techniques of con­ flict resolution, especially "interest arbitration" as it has been developed under the labor relations laws of Iowa governing public employees and faculty in the state's higher education institutions. On a more conceptual level, discussion focused on the techniques of conflict resolution developed by social science and how they could be applied to im­ proving attitudes and restructuring the procedures of collective bargaining in higher education. A three-sided discussion - presenting the viewpoints of an administrator, a union spokesman and an arbitrator - dealt with the ever-trou­ blesome gray area between due process and academic judgment. An experi­ mental session brought together union leaders and top-level administrators for an off-the-record exchange of views. The Program As in past Annual Conferences, not all the participants were in a position to provide written texts. But it may be helpful to the reader, despite the omissions, to see the framework of the sessions: Monday morning, April 28, 1980 9:00 INTRODUCTION Joel M. Douglas, Director, NCSCBHE WELCOME Joel Segall, President, Baruch College - CUNY 9:30 PLE'NARY SESSIONS THE ECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT JN THE EIGHTIES Speakers: T. Edward Hollander, Chancellor, N.J. Department of Higher Education Gerie Bledsoe, Director of Collective Bargaining, AAUP Moderator: Robert Helsby, Director, Public Employment Rela­ tions Services I LOO THE LEGAL ENVIRONME'NT IN THE EIGHTIES Speakers: Joseph M. Bress, Esq., General Counsel, NYS Office of Employee Relations Woodley B. Osborne, Esq., Nassau & Osborne 6 Moderator: Joel M. Douglas 12:45 LUNCHEON Topic: COLLECTIVE BARGAINING IN HIGHER EDUCA­ TION: EXPECTATIONS AND REALITIES - A UNIVERSITY PRESIDENT'S VIEWPOINT Speaker: John Silber, President, Boston University Moderator: Joel Segall, President, Baruch College Monday afternoon, April 28, 1980 2:30 SMALL GROUP SESSIONS Group A: RIGHTS ISSUES: A SCRAMBLE FOR POWER? Speaker: Margaret K. Chandler, Professor of Business, Colum­ bia University Daniel J. Julius, Director of Personnel Services, Ver­ mont State Colleges Discussant: Lawrence A. Poltrock, Esq., AFT General Counsel, Delong, Poltrock & Giampieptro Moderator: Julius Manson, Arbitrator, Professor Emeritus, Baruch College Group B: EMPLOYEE RELATIONS IN NON-UNIONIZED INSTITUTIONS Speaker: Jerome Medalie, Esq., Eidett, Slater & Goldman, P.C. Counsel to Northeastern University Discussant: Neil S. Bucklew, Provost, Ohio University Moderator: Samuel Ranhand, Arbitrator, Professor of Manage­ ment, Baruch College - CUNY Group C: UNION ACCOUNTABILITY: THE DUTY OF FAIR REPRESENTATION (DFR) Speaker: Ildiko Knott, Prof. of Political Science, Faculty Or­ ganization, Macomb County Community College Discussant: Richard M. Catalano, Vice Chancellor for Faculty and Staff Relations, CUNY Moderator: Theodore H. Lang, Arbitrator, Professor of Edu­ cation, Baruch College - CUNY, Former Director, NCSCBHE PRESIDENTIAL ROUND TABLE An off-the-record discussion between college and union presidents, 7 or their designees, to exchange philosophical views on faculty-admin­ istration relations in the 1980s. Moderators: David 0. Green, Vice President, Baruch College - CUNY Irwin Polishook, President, Professional Staff Con­ gress - CUNY, Vice President, AFT Tuesday morning, April 29, 1980 9:00 Group D: THE CALIFORNIA EXPERIENCE: PROTOTYPE OF THE EIGHTIES? Speakers: William Krist, California State College, Pres., Congress of Faculty Assns., NEA/AAUP/CSEA Thomas Mannix, Director of Collective Bargaining Services, University of California System Moderator: Richard E. Wilson, Vice President, Governmental Affairs, Amer. Assn. of Com. & Jr. Colleges Group E: NEW TECHNIQUES OF CONFLICT RESOLUTION Speaker: Robert Grant, Director of Employment Relations, State of Iowa, Board of Regents Discussant: David Randles, Member, NYS Public Employment Relations Board, Arbitrator
Recommended publications
  • Governing Body 323Rd Session, Geneva, 12–27 March 2015 GB.323/INS/5/Appendix III

    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 ........................
  • Worker Dislovation: Who Bears the Burden? a Comparative Study of Social Values in Five Countries Clyde Summers

    Worker Dislovation: Who Bears the Burden? a Comparative Study of Social Values in Five Countries Clyde Summers

    Notre Dame Law Review Volume 70 | Issue 5 Article 1 6-1-1999 Worker Dislovation: Who Bears the Burden? A Comparative Study of Social Values in Five Countries Clyde Summers Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.nd.edu/ndlr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Clyde Summers, Worker Dislovation: Who Bears the Burden? A Comparative Study of Social Values in Five Countries, 70 Notre Dame L. Rev. 1033 (1995). Available at: http://scholarship.law.nd.edu/ndlr/vol70/iss5/1 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by NDLScholarship. It has been accepted for inclusion in Notre Dame Law Review by an authorized administrator of NDLScholarship. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Worker Dislocation: Who Bears The Burden? A Comparative Study of Social Values in Five Countries Clyde W. Summers A pervasive phenomenon in modern industrial societies is the instability of employment. Production methods are replaced by new processes requiring different skills; robots replace human -hands; computers replace humaff competency. Demands for popu- lar products shrink or disappear as new or substitute products push into the market. Viable production facilities are transferred to new owners who may have new workforces. Outmoded plants are closed and new plants are opened, often at new locations with new employees. Marginal enterprises are downsized and unprofit- able enterprises are driven out of business. All of these changes are accentuated by slumps in the business cycle, leaving workers stranded without jobs.' Dislocation of workers is inescapable in anything other than a closed and regimented society which prefers stagnation to in- creased living standards.
  • Collective Bargaining Agreement

    Collective Bargaining Agreement

    COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT BETWEEN KITSAP COUNTY AND OPERATING ENGINEERS, LOCAL 302 TEAMSTERS, LOCAL 589 IAM & AW, DISTRICT 160, LOCAL 282 LABORERS UNION, LOCAL 252 KC-281-19 January 1, 2019 through December 31, 2020 COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE ARTICLE 1 – RECOGNITION ................................................................................... 1 ARTICLE 2 – UNION SECURITY .............................................................................. 1 ARTICLE 3 – UNION/EMPLOYER RELATIONS ...................................................... 2 ARTICLE 4 – DEFINITIONS ...................................................................................... 3 ARTICLE 5 – NON-DISCRIMINATION ...................................................................... 5 ARTICLE 6 – MANAGEMENT RIGHTS .................................................................... 6 ARTICLE 7 – GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE ................................................................ 6 ARTICLE 8 – JOB VACANCIES ............................................................................... 9 ARTICLE 9 – WORK PERFORMED IN HIGHER CLASSIFICATION ..................... 11 ARTICLE 10 – DISCIPLINE AND TERMINATION .................................................. 12 ARTICLE 11 – PAY PERIOD ................................................................................... 16 ARTICLE 12 – PAYROLL DEDUCTION AND AUTOMATIC PAYROLL DEPOSIT ......................................................................................... 16 ARTICLE 13
  • New York State Public School Superintendents' Perceptions

    New York State Public School Superintendents' Perceptions

    NEW YORK STATE PUBLIC SCHOOL SUPERINTENDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS OF THE EFFICACY OF THE IMPASSE PROCEDURES UNDER THE TAYLOR LAW AND THE EFFECT OF IMPASSE ON SCHOOL CLIMATE A Doctoral Research Project Presented to Doctoral Committee Chair Raymond O’Connell, Ed.D. Esteves School of Education The Sage Colleges In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Education In Educational Leadership Deborah L. Fox December 12, 2012 i NEW YORK STATE PUBLIC SCHOOL SUPERINTENDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS OF THE EFFICACY OF THE IMPASSE PROCEDURES UNDER THE TAYLOR LAW AND THE EFFECT OF IMPASSE ON SCHOOL CLIMATE We represent to Sage Graduate School that this thesis/dissertation and abstract are the original work of the author(s) and do not infringe on the copyright or other rights of others. Deborah L. Fox Date of Signature Raymond O’Connell Date of Signature Doctoral Research Committee Chair ii © Copyright Deborah L. Fox, 2012 All Rights Reserved iii Inspirational Quote "Accomplishing a goal is not as important as the person you become accomplishing it," Neil Armstrong 1930-2012 American Astronaut, Apollo 11 Space Commander, and first person to walk on the moon. iv Dedication This body of work is dedicated to my mother Merida Louise Wolfe Fox 1941-1976 from whom I learned that your health, family, and life are all precious. She inspired me to make every day count; to dream big; to love deeply; and to grasp work, play, and every day with enthusiasm, conviction, and confidence. Most importantly, her memory motivated me to never give up on my goals despite life’s challenges.
  • International Association of Machinists, Local 289 ​Auto

    International Association of Machinists, Local 289 ​Auto

    COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT By and Between Port of Seattle And INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS AND AEROSPACE WORKERS AFL-CIO DISTRICT LODGE NO. 160, LOCAL LODGE NO. 289 Term of Agreement July 1, 2019 – June 30, 2021 AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN PORT OF SEATTLE AND INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS AND AEROSPACE WORKERS, AFL-CIO, DISTRICT LODGE NO. 160, LOCAL LODGE NO. 289 JULY 1, 2019 - JUNE 30, 2021 TABLE OF CONTENTS Contents AGREEMENT ............................................................................................................... 1 ARTICLE 1 - RECOGNITION, SCOPE AND HIRING ............................................ 1 ARTICLE 2 - DISCHARGE OF EMPLOYEES ........................................................ 2 ARTICLE 3 - SHOP STEWARDS ............................................................................. 2 ARTICLE 4 - SENIORITY .......................................................................................... 2 ARTICLE 5 - PAYMENT OF WAGES ...................................................................... 3 ARTICLE 6 - SAFETY AND SANITARY CONDITIONS......................................... 4 ARTICLE 7 - VISIT TO THE ESTABLISHMENT .................................................. 5 ARTICLE 8 - GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE .............................................................. 5 ARTICLE 9 - SEPARABILITY AND SAVINGS CLAUSE ...................................... 6 ARTICLE 10 - PERSONS PROHIBITED .................................................................. 7 ARTICLE 11 - HOURS OF WORK............................................................................
  • Anne Marie Lofaso

    Anne Marie Lofaso

    Anne Marie Lofaso West Virginia University College of Law 101 Law Center Drive, Morgantown, WV 26506-6130 http://www.employmentpolicy.org/people/anne-lofaso [email protected] tel: 304-293-7356 fax: 304-293-6891 SUMMARY HIGHER EDUCATION • University of Oxford, Fulbright Scholar, D.Phil., Law, March 1997 • University of Pennsylvania Law School, J.D., 1991 • Harvard University, A.B., History and Science, magna cum laude, June 1987 CLERKSHIP The Honorable James L. Oakes, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit Law Clerk, July 1993-August 1994 ADMINISTRATIVE AND FACULTY POSITIONS University of Oxford Senior Academic Visitor, Faculty of Law, January 1, 2016 – June 30, 2016 Keeley Visiting Fellow, Wadham College, January 1, 2016 – June 30, 2016 West Virginia University Office of the Provost and West Virginia University Research Office Leadership Research Fellow in the Arts, Humanities, and Non-STEM Disciplines, May 15, 2015 to Dec 30, 2015 West Virginia University College of Law • Associate Dean for Faculty Research and Development, July 1, 2011 to June 30, 2015 • Professor of Law, July 2011-present, Associate Professor of Law, January 2007-July 2011 New York University School of Law, Center for Labor and Employment • Research Scholar, since 2014 American University, Washington College of Law • Associate Adjunct Professor, 2004-2006, Lecturer in Law, 2001-2004 University of Oxford, St Hugh’s College, Tutor, 1996 AWARDS AND HONORS Scholarship 2014 Claude Worthington Benedum Distinguished Scholar Award 2010-11 West Virginia University College of Law Faculty Significant Scholarship Award 2010 ForeWord Book of the Year Award Finalist for REVERSING FIELD 2009-10 West Virginia University College of Law Faculty Significant Scholarship Award 2008-09 West Virginia University College of Law Faculty Significant Scholarship Award 2007-08 West Virginia University College of Law Faculty Significant Scholarship Award Teaching 2015 WEST VIRGINIA LAW REVIEW, VOL.
  • NLMC 2018 Agenda

    NLMC 2018 Agenda

    Conference Schedule Tuesday / August 21 7:30–8:30 a.m. Continental Breakfast and App Demonstration INTERNATIONAL BALLROOM 8:30–9:30 a.m. PLENARY INTERNATIONAL BALLROOM Presentation of Colors U.S. Armed Forces National Anthem Emma Kashanitz, Taylor Mondragon; Victor J. Andrew High School Opening Remarks Richard Giacolone, Director, FMCS Welcome to Chicago The Honorable Rahm Emanuel, Mayor of the City of Chicago; Robert Reiter, President, Chicago Federation of Labor; Kate Shindle, President, Actors’ Equity Association 9:30–10:00 a.m. MORNING BREAK - CONTINENTAL LEVEL 10:00–11:30 a.m. PROGRAMS/WORKSHOPS Collective Bargaining Series: Traditional Bargaining (CLE) John Gray, FMCS; Kevin Hawkins, FMCS SALON 3 Collective bargaining in today’s environment is challenging. Improved negotiation skills can increase your odds of achieving a collective bargaining agreement that meets the needs of both sides. Participants will learn the basics of the collective bargaining process and table dynamics, and identify strategies and skills to increase their odds not only for success at the table, but also for a productive labor-management relationship. Participants will leave with an understanding of proposal gathering, initial exchange, volleys, packaging, and the management of stakeholder dynamics that affect the entire process. This session is approved for 1.5 CLE Credits Dealing Positively with Difficult Behaviors Gary Hattal, FMCS; Tom Melançon, FMCS CONTINENTAL BALLROOM B What causes toxic behaviors in the workplace? How can we define and categorize these behaviors to help us understand and deal with them more effectively? This workshop provides specific tips and strategies for addressing interpersonal challenges in the workplace.
  • Unjust Dismissal and the Contingent Worker: Restructuring Doctrine for the Restructured Employee

    Unjust Dismissal and the Contingent Worker: Restructuring Doctrine for the Restructured Employee

    Unjust Dismissal and the Contingent Worker: Restructuring Doctrine for the Restructured Employee Mark Bergert American workers in the 1990s are finding that the employment landscape has changed dramatically. Expectations that competence and hard work lead to job security have eroded as a result of widespread labor force contractions, often involving financially healthy companies eager to improve their profit margins.' The process has been given such labels as downsizing, right-sizing, re-engineering, and corporate restructuring, and has had an impact on every segment of the workforce.2 Managers and executives, in particular, now find t Professor of Law, University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Law. B.A. 1966, Columbia University; J.D. 1969, Yale Law School. The author wishes to acknowledge the valuable research assistance provided by Chris Nielsen and Brant Elsberry, third-year law students at the University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Law. 1. See Stephen E. Frank, American Express PlansLay-offs of 3,300, WALL ST. J., Jan. 28, 1997, at A2 (reporting the fourth stage of American Express layoffs since 1991, despite "solid" fourth-quarter earnings and a 23% return on equity); John J. Keller, AT&T Will Eliminate40,000 Jobs and Take a Charge of $4 Billion, WALL ST. J., Jan. 3, 1996, at A3 ("AT&T Corp., charting one of the largest single cutbacks in U.S. corporate history, said it would take a $4 billion charge to eliminate 40,000 jobs over the next three years .... In the first nine months of 1995, AT&T earned $2.82 billion.... In 1994, full-year profit was $4.7 billion ...
  • The Power Resources Approach: Developments and Challenges

    The Power Resources Approach: Developments and Challenges

    The Power Resources Approach: Developments and Challenges Stefan Schmalz, Friedrich Schiller University, Germany Carmen Ludwig, Justus Liebig University, Germany Edward Webster, University of the Witwatersrand, South Africa Introduction Instead of dismissing labour as a product of the past, the study of labour has been revitalised over the past two decades by approaches that emphasise the ability of organised labour to act strategically. This new branch of research on trade union renewal has challenged the discourse of a general decline of organised labour, focusing instead on innovative organising strategies, new forms of participation and campaigning in both the Global North and the Global South (Turner, Katz and Hurd, 2001; Clawson, 2003; Milkman, 2006; Agarwala, 2013; Murray, 2017). The focus of these studies has not been the institutional setting of labour relations or the overall impact of major trends like globalisation on labour, but rather the strategic choice in responding to new challenges and changing contexts. In the discussion on trade union renewal, the power resources approach (PRA) has emerged as a research heuristic. The PRA is founded on the basic premise that organised labour can successfully defend its interests by collective mobilisation of power resources. This idea has significantly shaped the way scholars are dealing with the issue of union revitalisation and labour conflict, as studies from different world regions have examined union renewal as a process of utilising existing power resources while attempting to develop new ones (Von Holdt and Webster, 2008; Chun, 2009; Dörre, 2010a; McCallum, 2013; Julian, 2014; Melleiro and Steinhilber, 2016; Lehndorff, Dribbusch and Schulten, 2017; Ludwig and Webster, 2017; Xu and Schmalz, 2017).
  • Federal Jurisdiction Over Union Constitutions After Wooddell

    Federal Jurisdiction Over Union Constitutions After Wooddell

    Volume 37 Issue 3 Article 1 1992 Federal Jurisdiction over Union Constitutions after Wooddell James E. Pfander Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/vlr Part of the Labor and Employment Law Commons Recommended Citation James E. Pfander, Federal Jurisdiction over Union Constitutions after Wooddell, 37 Vill. L. Rev. 443 (1992). Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/vlr/vol37/iss3/1 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Villanova University Charles Widger School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Villanova Law Review by an authorized editor of Villanova University Charles Widger School of Law Digital Repository. Pfander: Federal Jurisdiction over Union Constitutions after Wooddell VILLANOVA LAW REVIEW VOLUME 37 1992 NUMBER 3 FEDERAL JURISDICTION OVER UNION CONSTITUTIONS AFTER WOODDELL JAMES E. PFANDER* I. INTRODUCTION For the first half of this century, the task of policing the inter- nal affairs of labor organizations fell, essentially by default, to state court judges.' State courts based their authority to inter- * Associate Professor of Law, University of Illinois College of Law; B.A. 1978, University of Missouri; J.D. 1982, University of Virginia. I wish both to thank and to absolve Don Dripps, Kit Kinports, Martin H. Malin, Thomas M. Mengler, Laurie Mikva and Clyde W. Summers (for comments on earlier drafts), Jim Piper, Lee Reichert and Tony Rodriguez (for research assistance) and the University of Illinois (for research support). 1. The state courts' initial reluctance to hear disputes arising from the in- ternal workings of labor unions stemmed from the fact that unions were typically organized as voluntary associations.
  • Labor Arbitration Thirty Years After the Steelworkers Trilogy Martin H

    Labor Arbitration Thirty Years After the Steelworkers Trilogy Martin H

    Chicago-Kent Law Review Volume 66 Issue 3 Symposium on Labor Arbitration Thirty Years Article 3 after the Steelworkers Trilogy October 1990 Foreword: Labor Arbitration Thirty Years after the Steelworkers Trilogy Martin H. Malin IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.kentlaw.iit.edu/cklawreview Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Martin H. Malin, Foreword: Labor Arbitration Thirty Years after the Steelworkers Trilogy, 66 Chi.-Kent L. Rev. 551 (1990). Available at: https://scholarship.kentlaw.iit.edu/cklawreview/vol66/iss3/3 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Scholarly Commons @ IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Chicago-Kent Law Review by an authorized editor of Scholarly Commons @ IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. FOREWORD: LABOR ARBITRATION THIRTY YEARS AFTER THE STEELWORKERS TRILOGY MARTIN H. MALIN* On June 20, 1960, the Supreme Court issued its decisions in what has become known as the Steelworkers Trilogy.' The Trilogy culminated the process of federalization of the law of collective bargaining agree- ments which began with the enactment of section 301 of the Taft-Hartley Act. 2 The Court held that an employer may not defend against an action to compel arbitration on the ground that the underlying grievance is friv- olous, that grievances are presumed to be arbitrable and parties to a col- lective bargaining agreement should be compelled to arbitrate unless it can be said with positive assurance that the agreement withdrew the mat- ter from arbitration, and that a court should enforce an arbitration award as long as the award draws its essence from the collective bargaining agreement.
  • Collective Bargaining Agreement Between Kitsap

    Collective Bargaining Agreement Between Kitsap

    COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT BETWEEN KITSAP COUNTY AND OPERATING ENGINEERS, LOCAL 302 TEAMSTERS, LOCAL 589 IAM & AW, DISTRICT 160, LOCAL 282 LABORERS UNION, LOCAL 252 KC-004-15 January 1, 2015 through December 31, 2016 Page intentionally left blank COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE ARTICLE 1 – RECOGNITION .............................................................................................. 1 ARTICLE 2 – UNION SECURITY ......................................................................................... 1 ARTICLE 3 – UNION/EMPLOYER RELATIONS ................................................................. 2 ARTICLE 4 – DEFINITIONS ................................................................................................. 3 ARTICLE 5 – NON-DISCRIMINATION................................................................................. 5 ARTICLE 6 – MANAGEMENT RIGHTS ............................................................................... 5 ARTICLE 7 – GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE .......................................................................... 6 ARTICLE 8 – JOB VACANCIES .......................................................................................... 9 ARTICLE 9 – WORK PERFORMED IN HIGHER CLASSIFICATION ................................ 12 ARTICLE 10 – DISCIPLINE AND TERMINATION ............................................................. 13 ARTICLE 11 – PAY PERIOD ............................................................................................. 16 ARTICLE 12 – PAYROLL