DOCSLIB.ORG

Union Issues in the Solid Waste Industry

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read 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. Re- unionized. While union ranks have try”.3 While the Teamsters’ past in- cently, it announced its separation fluctuated since, there has been a discretions may cloud its definition from the AFL-CIO to pursue a more significant and consistent decline of “justice,” it has certainly initiated aggressive organizing strategy. Solid in union membership over the last efforts to organize the private solid waste companies will certainly con- 50 years. waste industry, including a two-day tinue to be a high priority for new strategic planning session in the Teamster organizing. According to the Bureau of Labor Fall of 2004 aimed at the industry’s Statistics, 12.5 percent of wage and three largest companies—Waste This paper reviews the methods salary workers were members of a Management, Allied Waste, and used by unions to organize com- labor union in 2004.1 All states in Republic Services. The Teamsters panies, the procedures by which the Middle Atlantic and Pacific re- have appointed a National Solid unions become certified as repre- gions reported union membership Waste Coordinator, Ed Jacobson, to 1 Bureau of Labor Statistics, Union Members Summary, www.bls.gov/news.release/union2.nr0.htm (Jan. 27, 2005). 2 Waste News, Teamsters Target Trash Industry, www.wastenews.com (Mar. 29, 2004). 3 International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Teamsters To Hold National Solid Waste Strategic Planning Meeting, www.teamsters.org (Oct. 2004). T M LITTLER MENDELSON, PC The National Employment & Labor Law Firm www.littler.com A Littler Archive Newsletter page 2 spearhead its organizational efforts. surance coverage for employees in a thinly- union representation is through an NLRB- veiled attempt to establish a foothold within conducted election. A union files an election It is not surprising that the industry has be- that company. Often, such corporate cam- petition with the Board that must be support- come a high-profile target of union organizing paigns serve to drive down stock prices even ed by a sufficient “showing of interest.” This efforts. First, the industry is recession-resis- if the union’s goal of organizing is not met. showing of interest is met by evidence that at tant. Second, unions have lost many mem- least 30 percent of employees in the unit the bers due to companies moving jobs abroad Another organizing method used with some union is attempting to organize wish to be in order to reduce labor and regulatory costs success is “salting.” This is where a union or- represented by the union. Typically, a union and the industry provides unions with an op- ganizer applies for a job with an employer for will not proceed to this stage unless there is portunity to get new members. As a result, the sole purpose of organizing its employees. support from a majority of employees. other unions have thrown their hat into the Last, unions have become technologically ring, including the Operating Engineers, the savvy in an effort to reach a broader base of Sometimes a union representative or employ- Longshoreman, and the Machinists. potential members through the internet and ee will approach a member of the manage- specific union websites. ment team and hand him or her signed union Union Organizing Tatics authorization cards. It is imperative that the Card Check Agreements and Union manager or supervisor refrain from inspect- Before addressing the process of union orga- Representation Petitions ing the cards. The NLRB has held in a num- nizing, it is necessary to have a basic under- ber of cases that supervisors reviewing cards standing of the relevant federal statutes and Now that you know the methods used by and expressing their belief that the signatures administrative agencies you will encounter unions to organize employees, we turn to are genuine can constitute voluntary recogni- along the way. In 1935, Congress enacted the how they actually get their foot in the door. A tion without the need for an election. Thus, National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), which tactic that has become increasingly popular is if presented with this situation, management is a federal law designed to regulate employer, pressuring employers to enter into card check should simply tell the presenter of the cards union and employee conduct. In conjunction recognition agreements. In these agreements, to contact the NLRB. with this statute, Congress also established employers agree to forgo an NLRB-conducted the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB election and negotiate with the union as the Once a petition is filed with the NLRB, a or “the Board”), which is an administrative employees’ representative if the union is able hearing will be set within the next 14 days. agency charged with implementing the poli- to collect signed authorization cards from a The hearing is primarily used to resolve is- cies of the NLRA. majority of employees. Authorization cards sues concerning which employees are eligible are simple documents signed by employees to vote in the election. Usually, the employer While often employees will seek out unions stating that they wish to be represented by and union will agree to the group of voting for representation, recent history has shown the particular union. Employees are easily employees without proceeding to a hearing. that unions are taking a more proactive ap- pressured to sign these cards by union orga- Then, an election date will be set within 42 proach to organizing. For example, unions nizers. days of the date after the petition was filed. have employed a “top down” approach Ultimately, employees will vote in a secret whereby they target employers vulnerable Unions often ask the employer to remain ballot election and the union must obtain to adverse publicity campaigns and politi- neutral (refrain from expressing positive or a majority of the votes counted to be suc- cal pressure. In those cases, unions aim their negative views concerning union representa- cessful. A tie goes to the employer. Employ- campaign at the larger corporation (specifi- tion) when soliciting cards. The card Union ers prefer secret ballot elections over a card cally, the Board of Directors and sharehold- Organizing Tactics check/neutrality agree- check because it ensures employees will have ers) rather than individual business units, ment path is preferred by unions because the opportunity to vote their conscience with with the hope they can force the corporation studies have shown that unions’ success rate little fear of retaliation by the union. to voluntarily agree to recognize the union in organizing employees under this method without proceeding through a Boardcon- is significantly greater compared to their suc- In between the time a petition is filed and ducted election. cess rate in NLRB-conducted elections. This when the election is held, often known as the is because employees only hear one side of “critical period,” an employer is permitted to Recently, unions have attempted to use the the story and that story is often misrepre- run a campaign (including speeches and writ- media as a weapon to target companies. For sented. Employees are sometimes coerced ten communications) to express its views on instance, several unions enlisted the help of into signing cards and sign them believing why it does not believe a union is necessary. “Dateline” to investigate allegations (which the union will then leave them alone. Unfor- However, supervisors must be careful of what turned out to be false) concerning a super- tunately, employees do not realize that they they say and how they say it to avoid running market chain’s products and treatment of have a legal right not to join a union. During afoul of the NLRA. The acronym “TIPSS” can customers. Unions have also made an effort an election campaign, employers are permit- help supervisors remember certain prohibi- to attack the public image of companies, ted to inform employees of this right as well tions: known as “corporate campaigns.” For ex- as other legal rights protected by federal law.
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]
  • Rethinking Precarity and Capitalism: an Interview with Charlie Post
    Rethinking Precarity and Capitalism | 247 Rethinking Precarity and Capitalism: An Interview with Charlie Post Jordy Cummings1 (JC): The theme of this year’s Alternate Routes is the “paradox of low-wage, no-wage work”, and there is a great deal of analysis of an allegedly new historical subject, “the precariat”. What do you make of this “paradox”? Is capitalism really that different in 2015 than it was 20, 30, 40 years ago? Charlie Post2 (CP): Capitalism is certainly different today than it was during the so-called “Golden Age” of 1945-1975. During those years, “full-employment” – unemployment below the “frictional” rate of 3-4 percent, the dominance of full-time work with unemployment insurance, health care, pensions and the like (provided by the state, private employers, or some combination) – was the norm. This “full-employment” model also included some measure of job security – either legal or contractual protections from arbitrary dismissal, etc. The “Golden Age” was, in my opinion, exceptional in the history of capitalism. It was the product of a combination of a long period of rising profitability (1933-1966) and a militant labor movement across the industrialized world. Workers had threatened the foundations of capitalist rule (France and Spain in the mid-1930s, France and Italy immediately after World War II, France in 1968, Portugal 1974-1975) or severely disrupted capitalist accumulation in mass strike waves in the mid-1930s, immediate post-war years and again between 1965-1975. Capital was forced to make major concessions to labor. The “full-employment” model and the expansive welfare state were the most important gains, giving workers unprecedented security of employment.
    [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]
  • Employee Free Choice Act—Union Certification
    S. HRG. 108–596 EMPLOYEE FREE CHOICE ACT—UNION CERTIFICATION HEARING BEFORE A SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS UNITED STATES SENATE ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION SPECIAL HEARING JULY 16, 2004—HARRISBURG, PA Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations ( Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/senate U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 95–533 PDF WASHINGTON : 2004 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800 Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001 COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS TED STEVENS, Alaska, Chairman THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico ERNEST F. HOLLINGS, South Carolina CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont MITCH MCCONNELL, Kentucky TOM HARKIN, Iowa CONRAD BURNS, Montana BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama HARRY REID, Nevada JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire HERB KOHL, Wisconsin ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah PATTY MURRAY, Washington BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL, Colorado BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota LARRY CRAIG, Idaho DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois MIKE DEWINE, Ohio TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana JAMES W. MORHARD, Staff Director LISA SUTHERLAND, Deputy Staff Director TERRENCE E. SAUVAIN, Minority Staff Director SUBCOMMITTEE ON DEPARTMENTS OF LABOR, HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, AND EDUCATION, AND RELATED AGENCIES ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania, Chairman THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi TOM HARKIN, Iowa JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire ERNEST F.
    [Show full text]
  • The FLSA Final Overtime Rule ® Issue No.1|September 2016 Policies, Programs, Andservices
    Issue No. 1 | September 2016 ® The FLSA Final Overtime Rule A Resource Guide for Student Affairs Professionals Andrew Q. Morse and Holly M. Asimou OVERVIEW The Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) Final Overtime Rule has substantially increased the salary threshold for exemption from overtime pay. The effect of the Final Rule will be felt by colleges and universities nationwide; many employees will now be eligible for overtime pay unless their salaries are brought in line with the new $47,476 minimum salary threshold or their hours are confined to 40 hours in a given workweek. These changes, set to take effect December 1, 2016, occur at a time when many institutions face persistent budgetary pressure. Moreover, the Final Rule’s impact on new types of employees not traditionally eligible for overtime pay will create the compliance challenge of tracking irregular hours or discerning between work and nonwork activities for many employees. Leaders in student affairs are not only faced with the responsibility to comply with the (Volume 1, Issue 1) 1, Issue (Volume (Volume 1, Issue 1) 1, Issue (Volume Final Rule, but to also ensure the operational sustainability of their departments or divisions. This resource guide offers a tour through the Final Rule and existing overtime laws and regulations. Further, this guide provides considerations and cautions to support the compliance and management responsibilities of leaders in student affairs. NASPA Policy and Practice Series and Practice Policy NASPA NASPA Policy and Practice Series Series and Practice Policy NASPA 1 1 THE AUTHORS Andrew Q. Morse, PhD, is director for policy research and advocacy with NASPA–Student Affairs Administrators in Higher Education’s Research and Policy Institute.
    [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]
  • LABOR PEACE AGREEMENTS Local Government As Union Advocate
    LABOR PEACE AGREEMENTS Local Government As Union Advocate 2016 ABSTRACT A labor peace agreement is an arrangement between a union and an employer under which one or both sides agree to waive certain rights under federal law with regard to union organizing and related activity. While these agreements can be negotiated voluntarily, some state and local governments have attempted to impose them on employers by passing labor peace ordinances. Under these policies, a private sector employer must secure a labor peace agreement with a union as a condition of doing business at a facility or project in which a government entity asserts a “proprietary interest.” LABOR PEACE ORDINANCES IN THE UNITED STATES Labor peace ordinances come in many different forms, but they all have one essential purpose: to apply economic pressure on employers to compel them to grant organizing concessions to unions. These concessions can include card check (an employer recognizes a union based on signed cards rather than by the results of a secret ballot election), neutrality (an employer refrains from expressing negative States where a labor States where a labor peace States where labor peace States that prohibit local peace ordinance exists in ordinance exists in one or more ordinances have recently been labor peace ordinances opinions about a union and one or more jurisdictions jurisdictions and labor peace debated or unions have targeted ordinances have been debated intervening in an organizing or unions have targeted campaign), and workplace access (an employer allows outside union organizers into the workplace). In exchange, unions typically must promise not to strike, picket or otherwise disrupt an employer’s operations—at least for a time.
    [Show full text]
  • Neutrality Agreements and Card Check Recognition: Prospects for Changing Labor Relations Paradigms
    Neutrality Agreements and Card Check Recognition: Prospects for Changing Labor Relations Paradigms James J. Brudney* I. INTRODUCTION [I]t is important … [to] not[e] … what scientists never do when confronted by even severe and prolonged anomalies. Though they may begin to lose faith and then to consider alternatives, they do not renounce the paradigm that has led them into crisis … . [O]nce it has achieved the status of paradigm, a scientific theory is de- clared invalid only if an alternate candidate is available to take its place. t the heart of the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA” or “Act”) is § 7, guaranteeing workers the right to band together for collective bargaining “through representatives of their own choosing.” This em- Aployee choice, including the right to refrain from unionizing, has long been analogized to voting in political elections. The resonance of the comparison between industrial and political democracy has helped make elections supervised by the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB” or “Board”) the dominant explanatory structure, or para- digm, for the exercise of employee choice under the NLRA. The past decade has witnessed a growing challenge to the election paradigm as the preferred approach for determining whether employees want union representation. A central component of this challenge is U.S. unions’ success securing agreements from employers to remain neutral during organizing campaigns. These agreements gener- ally provide that the employer will not demand a Board-supervised election, but will recognize the union if a majority of employees sign authorization cards. Neutrality agreements that include card check recognition provide a distinct mecha- nism for employees to select union representation.
    [Show full text]
  • The Employee Free Choice Act: the Biggest Change in Labor Law in 60 Years by Robert Quinn and John Leschak
    LABOR LAW REGIONAL LABOR REVIEW, Fall 2009 The Employee Free Choice Act: The Biggest Change in Labor Law in 60 Years by Robert Quinn and John Leschak One of the most contentious proposals of the 2008 Presidential campaign and of the current Congressional season in Washington is the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA). Supported by President Obama and opposed by Senator John McCain and most other Republicans, EFCA would be the most significant change to federal labor law in over sixty years. First, EFCA would allow the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) to certify a union without an election if a majority of workers voluntarily sign cards authorizing a union to represent them (this provision is also known as “card check”). Second, EFCA would impose new penalties on employers who violate workers’ rights during initial organizing campaigns. And third, EFCA would permit bargaining disputes between an employer and union to be decided by arbitration during first-time contract negotiations. However, several powerful groups are opposed to any change. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has launched a vociferous campaign against EFCA’s “Card Check” provision, which they claim will lead to intimidation and coercion in the workplace.1 Congressional Republicans have also been outspoken opponents of card check. Last February, Republican Senators Jim DeMint (S.C.) and Mike Enzi (Wyo.) introduced the Secret Ballot Protection Act, S. 478. This bill would make it illegal for an employer to voluntarily recognize a union through card check and would require NLRB elections. While many are opposed to EFCA, it cannot be denied that reform is needed.
    [Show full text]
  • Restoring Equity in Right-To-Work Law
    Restoring Equity in Right-to-Work Law Catherine L. Fisk & Benjamin I. Sachs* Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 857 I. Reading Section 14(b) ................................................................................................. 860 II. A Genuine Right to Be Nonunion .......................................................................... 866 III. Removing the Obligation to Represent Nonmembers for Free ...................... 874 Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 879 INTRODUCTION Under United States labor law, when a majority of employees in a bargaining unit choose union representation, all employees in the unit are then represented by the union and the union must represent all of the employees equally.1 Twenty-four states, however, have enacted laws granting such union-represented employees the right to refuse to pay the union for the services the union is legally obligated to provide.2 Although the name prompts strong objection from union supporters, these laws are known as “right-to-work” laws. Right-to-work laws have been around for decades,3 but they have come to national prominence again as another round of states has enacted the legislation. Michigan—a state with relatively high levels of union density4—enacted a right-to- work statute in 2012, and Indiana became a right-to-work state in 2010.5 As a * The authors are, respectively, Chancellor’s Professor of Law, University of California, Irvine School of Law, and Kestnbaum Professor of Labor and Industry, Harvard Law School. Professor Fisk thanks Daniel Schieffer, and Professor Sachs thanks Ani Gevorkian for excellent research assistance. 1. National Labor Relations Act § 9, 29 U.S.C. § 159(a) (2012). 2. Right to Work Resources, NAT’L CONF. ST. LEGISLATURES, http://www.ncsl.org/issues -research/labor/right-to-work-laws-and-bills.aspx (last visited Sept.
    [Show full text]
  • Single-Employer and Multi-Employer Lockouts Under the Taft-Hartley
    SINGLE EMPLOYER AND MULTI-EMPLOYER LOCK- OUTS UNDER THE TAFT-HARTLEY ACT BERNARD D. MELTZER* P HE growth of multi-employer bargaining' has been accompanied by increased litigation regarding the legality of the so-called multi-employ- . er "defensive" lockout, i.e., a lockout by the unstruck members of a multi-employer bargaining unit, who are subject to an express or implied strike threat, in response to a strike called against one or more members of their group after an impasse in negotiations for a master contract. Although such a lockout may raise anti-trust questions, 2 as well as questions under the Taft- Hartley Act, recent litigation has arisen exclusively under the Taft-Hartley Act. This litigation has made only one thing clear: The NLRB, according to the reviewing courts, is always wrong. Thus the initial position taken by a majority of the Board (pre-Eisenhower), that defensive lockouts are illegal under the Taft-Hartley Act, was rejected by the courts of appeals in three circuits. 3 A new * Professor of Law, University of Chicago Law School. xFor estimates of the number of employees involved consult Collective Bargaining with Associations and Groups of Employers, 64 Monthly Lab. Rev. 397,398 (1947); Collective Bar- gaining Structures: The Employer Bargaining Unit, Bureau of Labor Statistics (1953). The former is discussed in Pierson, Prospects for Industry-Wide Bargaining, 3 Indust. & Lab. Rel. Rev. 341, 360 (1950). 2The author plans to discuss these questions in a forthcoming issue of this Review. 3Morand Bros. Beverage Co. v. NLRB, 190 F. 2d 576 (C.A.
    [Show full text]