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 AllSemiconductor Component Maker Accused of Deceiving Investors About Market Downturn, Export Curbs
3 minute readRecent FTC Cases Against Auto Dealers Suggest Regulators Are Keeping Foot on Accelerator
6 minute readTrending Stories
- 1'Largest Retail Data Breach in History'? Hot Topic and Affiliated Brands Sued for Alleged Failure to Prevent Data Breach Linked to Snowflake Software
- 2Former President of New York State Bar, and the New York Bar Foundation, Dies As He Entered 70th Year as Attorney
- 3Legal Advocates in Uproar Upon Release of Footage Showing CO's Beat Black Inmate Before His Death
- 4Longtime Baker & Hostetler Partner, Former White House Counsel David Rivkin Dies at 68
- 5Court System Seeks Public Comment on E-Filing for Annual Report
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
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