skip to Main Content

Neutrality Agreement Permissive Subject Of Bargaining

Mr. Robb continued, “While it is well established that the scope of a bargaining unit is a permissive bargaining matter, an early agreement on the extent of unity between the parties deprives the board of its power to determine unity, while giving the union a misleading framework of authority that allows it to elicit convincing support from workers.” Consequently, “such a provision, agreed before a trade union has obtained majority status, is premature and illegal”. Illegal trading issues: it`s simple. An illegal bargaining subject is a subject on which, even if it is included in a collective agreement, it is not applicable. For example, if an employment contract states that if employees are late for work three times a week, those employees must take cocaine the rest of the month. Cocaine colds are illegal, which is why unions and companies should not negotiate this type of clause in a contract. A little less aberrant, but no less illegal, are the clauses that require a closed store, the clauses of union stores in the states of law, hot freight agreements and anything that is contrary to a national or federal labor law. The provisions of an agreement allowing trade union organisers access to employers` organisations are “more than just ministerial assistance”, as described above. The Board of Directors also decided that union access to employer ownership is a mandatory bargaining matter. Consequently, any prior recognition agreement giving such access to trade union organisations is premature and illegal. According to Mr. Robb, this standard should also apply to the analysis of certain provisions of neutrality agreements.

“Neutrality agreements that are truly `neutral` and do not impede workers` rights – for example, if an employer agrees to remain neutral during an organizing campaign, in exchange for the union abandoning a corporate campaign – remain legal by the standard “more than ministerial assistance.” According to Robb, “an employer who commits in a neutrality agreement to make available to a union the use of its private institutions before and after work, as well as during employee meals and breaks to ask employees to sign union authorization cards, would generally reach the level of more than ministerial assistance.” The history of the parties` behaviour in the past, which remembers the parties` expectations of future negotiations. These practices, sanctioned by use and acceptance, are not explicitly included in the collective agreement. To constitute a previous practice, the question must be: (1) be clear to the parties; (2) consistent in its application over a period of time; and (3) tolerated by the parties. Arbitrators use current practice to interpret the ambiguous language of the collective agreement. Finally, Mr. Robb stated that “pre-recognition or neutrality agreements between a union and an employer that impose opposition on employees who want to defend their rights before the board of directors are also illegal.” For example, “a provision requiring both parties to ask the board of directors to reject any effort by a third party to request an election limits employees` access to the board of directors.” Many collective agreements mention a widely used term that requires the employer to use good and sufficient reasons to discipline employees. . . .

Back To Top