Source: https://www.goiam.org/news/departments/hq/collective-bargaining/your-right-to-coordinated-bargaining/
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 06:07:01+00:00

Document:
(3) They can coordinate separate contract negotiations.
This is the alternative preferred when employers will not accept a master agreement and locals want to increase their bargaining strength.
The courts usually recognize that separate locals pooling efforts to obtain uniformity of labor standards are pursuing a legitimate union goal. But each case is decided on its own merits. Normally, neither the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) nor the courts will question a local’s attempts to seek pay scales, expiration dates, fringe benefits and other substantive contract items identical to those of another local in the absence of evidence of a motive to force a master agreement on a unwilling employer.
Such evidence can be deduced from statements made publicly or in bargaining sessions. Parallel action in and of itself is not illegal and cannot be used as evidence of an unlawful motive. However, unions seeking to force an employer (by striking, for example) to accept a master agreement where none previously existed risk successful challenge in the courts.
In cases arising out of challenges to coordinated bargaining, courts have looked at the facts as well as the union’s conduct. Thus in a case involving the Utility Workers, it was found that “From the outset of negotiations until final agreements were reached, the respondents here (Utility Workers) demanded and insisted that identical offers had to be made for all of the units.” In other words, negotiations were not conducted separately and the NLRB, relying on court precedents, ruled against the union.
If a local lodge wishes to have members from other locals on its committee, the employer must negotiate with the committee as designated. Such “travelers” are members of the committee like any others and their role is determined by the committee itself.
At least two appeals courts have upheld the right of local unions to include members of other unions on their negotiating committees. Companies may not refuse to bargain so long as such committees bargain solely on behalf of employees represented by the particular local union. Courts have found an employer is required to meet with individuals selected to be on the bargaining committee picked by the union. An employer may not refuse to bargain merely because a bargaining committee includes employees of other plants who are members of other unions.
If the agreement provides for paid or unpaid leave for union business or it has been past practice, such leave must be granted to union representatives who have been elected or appointed to bargaining committees of other locals. An employer denying such leave may be violating Section 8(a)5, which requires bargaining in good faith with representatives of the employees.
In an NLRB case Indiana & Michigan the Board found no evidence of union attempts to force company-wide negotiations. Accordingly it ruled that the company’s denial of leave to a “traveler” member of the bargaining committee along with its refusal to schedule weekend meetings, effectively denied its employees representation by that member.
Further, it has been held that since employers have a duty to provide unions with information needed for collective bargaining, refusal to permit attendance, even without a specific contractual provision, violates the employer’s duty. This is because coordinated bargaining conferences as well as negotiating sessions are an essential source of information not obtainable through any other means.
(1) Refusing to make its plant premises available for the purpose of negotiating a collective bargaining agreement . . . (and refusing) to pay its plant employees on the negotiating committee for lost working time.
(2) Denying uncompensated leave and/or vacation time to its employees where the purpose of such leave is to attend and participate in contract negotiations.
(3) Refusing to sign an agreed upon collective bargaining contract.
(4) Suspending or otherwise disciplining employees for engaging in protected concerted activity.
(5) Threatening employees that the participation in negotiations for a collective bargaining agreement by persons not employed in the appropriate unit as representatives of the union engaging in such negotiations, would result in a less favorable contract for the employees in the appropriate unit.
Among other remedies, the company was ordered to cease and desist from refusing to sign a contract simply because a member of the bargaining committee was not in the affected unit. Moreover, the employee in question was awarded back pay and the removal of disciplinary notices from his file.
A bargaining committee can legally propose a master agreement or uniform contract provisions for several separate locals. But if the employer rejects such a proposal, it must be withdrawn and the individual contracts negotiated separately. In the absence of specific actions or statements demonstrating a union’s attempt to force uniform contract language, mere proffering of the proposal is not evidence of unlawful intent.
A union may also lawfully pursue uniform wages or other parallel contract provisions. The NLRB and courts will carefully examine the circumstances and history surrounding efforts to obtain uniform contract language. However, they have permitted unions negotiating separately to insist on a common provision as long as it is not linked to a common uniform comprehensive package.
(2) The refusal came after all the terms of the agreement had been settled.
In these circumstances, the Board viewed the local’s refusal as a stumbling block improperly based on an extraneous issue.
In the Frito-Lay case cited in footnote 1, the court cited cases in which group voting among employees in separate units was upheld because the working conditions negotiated in one unit may substantially affect the working conditions of the other units.
In the IAM, strike decisions must be made by individual lodges, subject to approval by the Executive Council. These procedures are not changed by coordinated bargaining.
The protection available to members of one union when members of another union go on strike depends on contract language.
Similarly, if Local A sets up a picket line at Local B’s plant, it may be honored if Local B’s contract specifically permits such activity.
Clearly, the more protections members have under their contract the more effective their lodge will be in working with other IAM lodges to achieve greater strength through coordinated bargaining.
Frito-Lay, Inc. v. Teamsters Local 137, 623 F. 2d 1354 (9th Cir. 1980); NLRB v. Indiana and Michigan Electric Co., 599 F. 2d 185 (7th Cir. 1979); AFL-CIO Joint Negotiating Committee for Phelps Dodge v. NLRB, 470 F. 2d 722 (3rd Cir. 1972).
Utility Workers Union, 203 NLRB 230 (1973).
Minnesota Mining and Mfg. Co. v. NLRB, 415 F 2d 174 (8th Cir. 1969); General Elec. Co. v. NLRB, 412 F. 2d 512 (2d Cir. 1969).
Proctor & Gamble Mfg. Co., 248 NLRB 953 (1980), enforced, Docket No. 80-1275 (4th Cir., Sept. 4, 1981); DLR D1-10 (Sept. 4, 1981).
As the court said in Minnesota Mining and Mfg. Co., 415 F 2d at 178, “The mere possibility of future abuse . . . is no justification for an anticipatory refusal to bargain.” (emphasis added).
Utility Workers Union, 203 NLRB 230.
NLRB v. Insurance Agents” International Union, 361 U.S. 477 (1960).
Utility Workers Union, 203 NLRB, p. 1239.
Standard Oil Co., 137 NLRB 690 (1962).
United Steelworkers (Lynchburg Foundry Co.), 192 NLRB 773 (1971).

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.