Opinion ID: 1926342
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Board's Deferral Guidelines

Text: Finally, the third prong of the deferral rule requires us to determine whether the Labor Board's deferral guidelines indicate that deferral would not serve the purposes of the statute. In determining whether to require the parties to exhaust their contractual remedies, the Labor Board considers the nature of the alleged unfair labor practice, whether the action of the employer is designed or would have the effect of significantly undermining the union, and whether the union has an adequate redress for the alleged wrong through the grievance procedure. Burlington Educ. Ass'n v. Burlington Bd. of Sch. Comm'rs, 1 V.L.R.B. at 343. The majority concludes that [t]here is no basis in the record to conclude that the employer's action was intended to, or did, undermine the association or its ability to bargain on behalf of its members, and that [a]dequate redress was available through the grievance procedure. ___ Vt. at ___, 759 A.2d at 485. I disagree with both conclusions. Here are the facts. During negotiations for the 1996-99 agreement, the union proposed two alternative provisions prohibiting subcontracting. The school board rejected both provisions but did not propose any alternative. Notably, it did not propose adding subcontracting to the management-rights clause, which details at great length the rights of the school board. The parties ratified the agreement by the end of December 1995. Before the parties signed the agreement, however, the superintendent notified the union that the business manager was considering subcontracting union jobs to nonunion workers for the period covered by the agreement the parties had just ratified. On March 28, 1996, before consulting with counsel, the union requested to negotiate over the impact of the implementation of sub-contracting for custodial services. On April 17, the parties met to discuss the impact of the subcontracting decision. Because the school board had not made a decision on subcontracting, however, the parties actually discussed the reasons the school board was considering subcontracting, rather than the impact of such a decision. Another meeting was scheduled, but for reasons not apparent in the record, was never held. During this time, the union also organized public opposition to the proposed subcontracting. The campaign included letter writing and telephone calls to school board members, letters to the editor of the local newspaper, presenting a petition to the school board and speaking out against subcontracting at school board meetings. Thus, despite the request for impact bargaining only, it is inconceivable that the school board was not aware that the union objected to subcontracting and wanted to bargain the issue. Compare Local 2787, 161 Vt. at 568, 643 A.2d at 840 (union's silence for over a year about proposed change in working conditions created justifiable expectation in employer that it could implement new conditions without challenge) with Mount Abraham Educ. Ass'n v. Mount Abraham Union High Sch. Bd. of Sch. Dirs., 4 V.L.R.B. 224, 231-32 (1981) (rejecting school board's contention that it had no obligation to bargain where association did not request bargaining because grievance filed by union was a clear sign of its objection to the unilateral [decision of school board]). On May 2, 1996, before the parties were able to continue their negotiations, the school board voted to subcontract the maintenance and custodial services for 1996-97. On May 9, the union filed a grievance pursuant to the collective-bargaining agreement. On June 6, after consulting with counsel, the union requested that the school board negotiate over the decision. The request was made only six weeks after the school board decided to subcontract and before the decision was implemented on July 1. On July 12, the school board responded that it would not rescind its decision to subcontract, and on July 19, the union filed an unfair-labor-practice claim. I believe that the record fully supports the Labor Board's decision. The Labor Board recognized that the union was not without fault because initially it sought to bargain only on the impact of subcontracting, not on the subcontracting decision itself. Nonetheless, the Labor Board concluded that the brief lapse did not excuse the school board from failing to negotiate in good faith with the union. The school board was well aware of the union's opposition to subcontracting as a result of the April 17 meeting and the organized campaign against subcontracting. Nonetheless, without pursuing any further negotiations with the union, the school board unilaterally decided to subcontract and refused to negotiate over this decision when requested by the union six weeks later. The Labor Board concluded that the school board's refusal to engage in the collective-bargaining process was particularly disturbing because the issue of subcontracting goes to the heart of the union's ability to protect bargaining unit employees, and involves an issue central to the system of collective bargaining. Further, it concluded that the actions of the school board were seriously detrimental to good faith labor relations because they preclud[ed] meaningful negotiations. This Court should uphold the conclusions of the Labor Board because they have factual support. See In re VSEA, 164 Vt. at 216, 666 A.2d at 1183 (question on appeal is whether there is factual support for Board's conclusion). It is difficult to understand how the majority concludes that there are no facts in the record to support the Labor Board's conclusion that the school board's refusal to bargain in good faith over the subcontracting decision undermined the union's ability to bargain on behalf of its members. See ___ Vt. at ___, 759 A.2d at 485. The record indicates that the school board negotiated an agreement with the union but, before the term of the agreement began, the school board fired nine union workers, replaced them with nonunion workers and refused to bargain with the union over the decision. What could undermine the union more than an employer replacing union workers with nonunion workers and refusing to negotiate over the decision? An employer's refusal to participate in goodfaith bargaining on a mandatory subject of bargainingparticularly on the subject of subcontracting, which goes to the heart of the union's ability to protect bargaining unit employeesobviously undermines the union's ability to bargain on behalf of its members. The majority also concludes that the union had adequate redress through the grievance procedure. The grievance procedure, however, is limited to resolving claims based on the agreement. Because the agreement does not address the issue of subcontracting, there is nothing in the contract for the arbitrator to interpret. Indeed, the arbitrator here concluded that subcontracting is not addressed by the collective-bargaining agreement. Because the parties' agreement provides that the grievance procedure applies only to disputes covered by the agreement, it is clear that the grievance procedure provides no redress for the union. Applying our three-prong deferral rule in this case, the Court should affirm the decision of the Labor Board that deferral to arbitration is inappropriate in this case. Further, as the Labor Board held: The collective bargaining agreement [is] silent on management's ability to contract out work. This silence does not equate with the School Board's ability to unilaterally contract out work without negotiating with the Association. See Gannett Rochester Newspapers v. NLRB, 988 F.2d 198, 203 (D.C.Cir.1993) (courts may not infer from general contractual provision that parties intended to waive statutorily protected right; silence in bargaining agreement is insufficient to meet clear-and-unmistakable-waiver standard); AMCAR Division, ACF Indus., Inc. v. NLRB, 592 F.2d 422, 429 (8th Cir.1979) (agreement with strong management-rights clause but silent on subcontracting does not authorize employer to subcontract union work without bargaining first with union). An employer's unilateral change in a mandatory subject of bargaining and refusal to bargain, absent an explicit waiver of the right by the union, is a per se violation of the union's statutory right to bargain the issue. See Mount Abraham Educ. Ass'n, 4 V.L.R.B. at 231-32.