Labor: NLRB overturns decades of precedent in support of continuing dues-checkoff
In-house counsel across the country have unexpectedly learned about or reacquainted themselves with the National Labor Relations Act over the course of President Obamas administration.
January 21, 2013 at 02:06 AM
7 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
In-house counsel across the country have unexpectedly learned about or reacquainted themselves with the National Labor Relations Act over the course of President Obama's administration. Most of these lessons have been caused by the Obama administration's National Labor Relations Board's (NLRB) very strong efforts to re-establish the relevancy of the board that has been lost in recent times through the decline of union membership in private sector workplaces. The board has not shied away from controversy during the past four years and has seen increased attention as a result.
This trend continued through the very end of 2012 as the NLRB issued what may be one of its most controversial decisions. Decades of precedent establishing an employer's right to terminate dues-checkoff at the expiration of a collective bargaining agreement was cast aside in the NLRB's Dec. 12, 2012, decision WKYC-TV, Inc.. Dues-checkoff refers to a way in which a union can collect membership dues from employees. As part of a collective bargaining agreement, the employer and union can agree that dues will be automatically deducted from the paychecks of union members. This provides an easy and efficient way to ensure that the union stays well-funded. It eliminates the need for the union to approach each individual bargaining unit member to collect his dues obligation.
WKYC-TV, Inc. addresses what happens to dues-checkoff terms once a collective bargaining agreement expires. As explained in the board's analysis, an employer must continue the terms and conditions of employment as set under the expired agreement if they are mandatory subjects of bargaining. These terms remain in place until there is a new agreement or the parties reach an impasse in bargaining. Under the analysis of the 1962 NLRB decision Bethlehem Steel, a decision firmly in place for the past 50 years, the board held that union security and dues-checkoff clauses were an exception to this general rule and subject to unilateral termination by the employer upon the expiration of a collective bargaining agreement containing those terms. Board Chairman Mark Pearce and Members Richard Griffin and Sharon Block, writing for the majority in WKYC-TV, Inc., declared that an employer must continue dues-checkoff after expiration of a collective bargaining agreement. WKYC-TV, Inc. removes a valuable economic bargaining chip from the employer's hand by requiring the employer to continue dues-checkoff. In his dissenting opinion, Member Brian Hayes argued that the board should continue to follow the Bethlehem Steel analysis.
This is an important decision for employers, regardless of whether their workforces are unionized. In the short term, negotiations with a union after the expiration of a collective bargaining agreement become more difficult under WKYC-TV, Inc. By continuing to force the employer to collect dues, the union ensures that it will stay well-funded through any lengthy dispute over the terms of a new agreement. Union personnel will no longer seek a deal for the sake of returning to a significant source of funding. Additionally, employers who want to discontinue dues-checkoff at the end of a collective bargaining agreement will now have to negotiate for such a term at the potential expense of something else. In the long term, this decision will likely provide a significant boost to efforts to maintain, strengthen and expand union membership in the private sector. Local sources of funding will be stronger than they were under the Bethlehem Steel rule. This will allow unions to pay more attention on expansion efforts than they could otherwise afford under the prior analysis.
In-house counsel across the country have unexpectedly learned about or reacquainted themselves with the National Labor Relations Act over the course of President Obama's administration. Most of these lessons have been caused by the Obama administration's National Labor Relations Board's (NLRB) very strong efforts to re-establish the relevancy of the board that has been lost in recent times through the decline of union membership in private sector workplaces. The board has not shied away from controversy during the past four years and has seen increased attention as a result.
This trend continued through the very end of 2012 as the NLRB issued what may be one of its most controversial decisions. Decades of precedent establishing an employer's right to terminate dues-checkoff at the expiration of a collective bargaining agreement was cast aside in the NLRB's Dec. 12, 2012, decision
This is an important decision for employers, regardless of whether their workforces are unionized. In the short term, negotiations with a union after the expiration of a collective bargaining agreement become more difficult under
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All'Rocket Docket': EDVA Judge Controls Google's Fate in Ad Tech Monopoly Trial
4 minute readTarget's Don Liu: 4 Fortune 500 GC Posts, a Singular Focus on Opening Doors for Asian Americans
9 minute read'Utterly Bewildering': GCs Struggle to Grasp Scattershot Nature of Law Firm Rate Hikes
Trending Stories
- 1The Law Firm Disrupted: Playing the Talent Game to Win
- 2Preparing Your Law Firm for 2025: Smart Ways to Embrace AI & Other Technologies
- 3BD Settles Thousands of Bard Hernia Mesh Lawsuits
- 4GlaxoSmithKline Settles Most Zantac Lawsuits for $2.2B
- 5A&O Shearman Adopts 3-Level Lockstep Pay Model Amid Shift to All-Equity Partnership
Who Got The Work
Blank Rome partner Andrew T. Hambelton has stepped in to defend Fragrancenet.com in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The case, filed Aug. 29 in New York Southern District Court by the Blakely Law Group, targets the defendants for allegedly selling counterfeit fragrance products. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Lorna G. Schofield, is 1:24-cv-06521, Abercrombie & Fitch Trading Co. v. Quester (US) Enterprises, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Davis Polk & Wardwell partners Mari Grace and Edmund Polubinski III have entered appearances for Australia-based Bitcoin-mining company Iris Energy and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Eastern District Court by the Rosen Law Firm, contends that the defendants concealed the inadequacy of the company's site in Childress County, Texas, including it being 'ill-equipped' and unable to operate the company's proprietary design. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Peggy Kuo, is 1:24-cv-07046, Williams-Israel v. Iris Energy Limited et al.
Who Got The Work
Ryan S. Stippich of Reinhart Boerner Van Deuren has entered an appearance for biopharmaceutical company Veru Inc. and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Sept. 30 in Wisconsin Western District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of June Ovadias, accuses the defendant of failing to disclose that small sample sizes and other issues rendered it unlikely that the FDA would grant Emergency Use Authorization for the cancer drug candidate sabizabulin as a potential treatment for COVID-19. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge William M. Conley, is 3:24-cv-00676, Ovadias, June v. Steiner, Mitchell et al.
Who Got The Work
Holland & Knight partners Cynthia A. Gierhart and Thomas Willcox Brooke have entered appearances for Pakistani American Political Action Committee and Rao Kamran Ali in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The action, filed Sept. 24 in District of Columbia District Court by Jackson Walker on behalf of Pakistani American Public Affairs Committee, accuses the defendants of using a mark that's confusingly similar to the plaintiff's 'Pak-Pac' marks without authorization. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Randolph D. Moss, is 1:24-cv-02727, Pakistani American Public Affairs Committee v. Pakistani American Political Action Committee et al.
Who Got The Work
Lauren M. Rosenberg and Yonatan Even of Cravath, Swaine & Moore have stepped in to represent Israel-based Oddity Tech Ltd. in a pending securities class action. The case, filed Aug. 30 in New York Southern District Court by Pomerantz LLP and Holzer & Holzer, contends that the defendant made materially misleading statements regarding the capability of Oddity's AI technology and ongoing civil litigation, resulting in the artifical inflation of the market price of Oddity's securities. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Margaret M. Garnett, is 1:24-cv-06571, Hoare v. Oddity Tech Ltd. et al.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250