Tuesday, March 8, 2011
Sam Estreicher (NYU) and Andrew Kramer (Jones Day) have published a piece in the New York Law Journal (or Download Framework Article) looking at the NLRB's recent Dana Corp. decision (no, not that Dana Corp., this one). In this decision, the Board (2-1) found no ULP resulted from a union and employer reaching a framework agreement over a possible CBA before the union gained majority status. The agreement specified a range for the CBA terms, health care costs, productivity standards, and many others. The majority concluded that this wasn't an 8(a)(2) problem because the employer said it would not recognize the union without majority support and the agreement only involved a general framework--not a complete CBA. In short, the agreement did not make the union a fait accompli.
Estreicher and Kramer applaud this decision, arguing that it gives unions and employers the increased flexibility needed in the current economy. They also suggest that the Board require that employees be given access to the framework agreement before voting (or signing cards) on union representation.
Check it out.