Uncategorized
The NLRB indicated that it could revise its vision of neutrality agreements between unions and employers. A neutrality agreement is an agreement concluded by a union and an employer before the union is certified as a negotiator in the workplace, i.e. during an organizing campaign. For example, the union may ask the employer not to oppose the union and, in return, the union may agree not to leaf through the company or to strike. A “neutrality” agreement is a contract between a union and an employer in which the employer agrees to support a union`s attempt to organize its membership. Although these agreements are in different forms, the common provisions are the same: in the IrCO/AFSCME example, a kind of borderline case, the guarantee of neutrality was treated as an end in itself, and the union actively inhibited the collective activity of the workers – the public relations “air war” ultimately sabotaged the ground game of the real organization. James Brudney, a professor of labour law, sums up the employer`s approach: “Employers` decision to enter into neutrality agreements – like their decision to oppose unions – is essentially a matter of business judgment.” Access to premises: Neutrality agreements usually give the union permission to visit the company`s site during working hours to collect union authorization cards. This situation is different from the NLRB and court guidelines, which provide that an employer is not required and may indeed be prohibited from giving the union such full access to its workers. Neutrality agreements are an insult and injustice to employees.
They are a desperate attempt by the unions to use their political power to support their depressed fortunes. Such a directive requires employers who do business with the government or participate in a government-sponsored program to sign what is called a “neutrality agreement.” A typical provision of a neutrality agreement is as follows: “The company undertakes not to make negative public statements about the Union and any representative, representative or member [trade union]”. For years, RWDSU pressured Zara`s Spanish management, while appealing to Workers in New York. Organizers were outside Manhattan stores and chatted with workers during breaks, met them in cafes, identified racist managers, and helped make petitions. “What we wanted to do was get the American leadership to do anti-union things to embarrass them publicly and then show the Spanish leadership, `Your American leadership makes you look bad by taking part in these practices.` What we did with racist stuff. Finally, a neutrality agreement was drawn up, in which the leaders were ordered not to say anything about the union, even when asked. Branch-wide meetings were held at each site, during which “managers spoke for a few minutes, then a union representative spoke for a few minutes, and then workers signed cards.” Remember that the board of directors was created to disrupt work (this is what is written in the title of the law: “to reduce the causes of labor disputes that weigh or hinder intergovernmental and foreign trade” through the mediation of dialogues and compromises between owners and workers. .
. .