Unions and Company - Essay Example

Union v Companies Key Concepts: This paper intends to analyze the 'collective bargaining' by the Unions in the of negotiating the 'working conditions and benefits'. "A labor union is an organization through which employees act as a group (through representatives) to negotiate with employers about grievances, disputes, pay, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment. These actions are called "collective bargaining."1 The right of workers to unionize is provided for by the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). The NLRA also defines the process to be followed by the unions to become the bargaining agent for a group of workers and sets out the rules for collective bargaining. This research paper illustrates two cases of collective bargaining by the Unions and the response of the companies. The paper also details the outcome of the company's responses in those cases. Issue Involved: The issue involved that is taken for discussion is the provision of food and services to the employees and whether such provision can be construed as one of the terms and conditions of employment. The cases taken up relate to the closure of the cafeteria meant for the workers by WMATA and the refusal to negotiate on the increase in the prices of food and beverages by Ford Motor Co. In both the cases the companies concerned had taken a stand that the provision of food and other services to the employees within the work premises is NOT one of the terms and conditions of employment. But the Unions argued that the issue necessarily forms part of the conditions of employment and hence the Unions have to be consulted before any decision could be taken on the issues. The relevant cases are discussed below: 1. WMATA v. Office Professional Employees International Union:2 Facts of the Case: The Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA) is regulated by Virginia, Maryland and District of Columbia Authorities who formed a lengthy compact for the entity. WMATA negotiated a 'collective bargaining agreement' with the trade union in which the employees had membership. WMATA wanted to close down a cafeteria to provide additional space for its legal department. The Authority argued that 'closing the cafeteria' is an absolute business decision and there was no need to get the Union agreed for this. Moreover there were other cafeterias available in the local vicinity. But the Union argued that "According to the compact, a "labor dispute" is defined as "any controversy concerning wages, salaries, hours, working conditions, or benefits," and must be resolved through collective bargaining" and hence the closing need to be negotiated. The Union took the issue to an arbitrator who decided in favor of the Union. Against the arbitration award the Authority filed a suit in the Federal Court. The Federal court confirmed the view taken by the arbitration. On an appeal by the WMATA against the decision of the Federal Court, the US Court of Appeals 4th Circuit gave its ruling. Decision of the Court of Appeal: Citing a 1979 decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Ford Motor Co. where it decided the food service is a condition of employment, the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals confirmed the decision of the lower court and ruled in favor of the Union. 2. Ford Motor Co (Chicago Stamping Plant) v National Labor Relations Board Et Al3 Facts of the Case: Ford Motor Co was providing its employees with in-plant cafeteria and vending machine service through independent caterer with an express right to review the quality, quantity and price of the food being offered. The company wanted to increase the price of the food items and notified the Union accordingly. When the Union wanted to negotiate the prices the company refused to bargain. The Union filed a charge of unfair labor practice with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) The NLRB citing the provisions of Section 8 (a) (5) and 8 (d) of the National Labor Relations Act, considered the provision of in-plant foods and services are 'other terms and conditions of employment' and sustained the charge and required the company to negotiate the prices. Decision of the Court of Appeal: On appeal by the Company the 7th Circuit US Supreme Court upheld the view of the NLRB and enforced the order holding the view that in-plant cafeteria and vending machine food and beverage prices and services are "terms and conditions of employment" subject to mandatory collective bargaining under 8 (a) (5) and 8 (d) of the NLRA. The Appeal court took the view that In-plant food prices and services are an aspect of the relationship between the company and its employees, and no third-party interest is directly implicated and also the court did not take the argument of the company in stating that the in-plant food prices and services are too trivial to qualify as mandatory bargaining subject. However the court opined it is a matter of importance as one of the terms of employment as being considered by the NLRB and the employees. Practice of the Companies on Collective Bargaining in Respect of In-plant Food Services: The following are the key concepts identified in respect of the companies and a comparison of the practices of the companies: 1. Both the companies considered the provision of in-plant food and other services did not constitute one of the terms and conditions of employment. 2. Having considered the issues unrelated to the terms of employment, the companies proceeded to take decisions concerning the changes in the provision of such services. 3. Both the companies considered that the issue is not one that needs to be discussed and negotiated with the unions before any decision is taken by them. 4. The companies were of the opinion that the provisions of Section 8 (a) (5) and (d) of the NLRA did not apply to the respective circumstances of the cases. 5. The companies went ahead with their decision to bring about the intended changes without consulting the Unions. There was no difference in the thinking and action of both WMATA and Ford Motor Co, though there is a variation in the issues; one concerning the removal of the cafeteria meant for the workers and the other related to the refusal of the company to negotiate the prices of food and other services. 6. In both the cases the lower courts considered the issues as forming part of the terms of employment and decided against the companies' contention. 7. Both the companies went on appeal to the Supreme Court where the Courts ruled upholding the lower court decisions. In view of the above discussions it is observed that the provision of in-plant food and other services will be treated as one of the terms and conditions of employment under the provisions of NLRA and any variation there of should be discussed with the Unions before effecting the changes. The key concept discussed identifies the duty of management and unions to bargain under 8 (a) (5) is defined by 8 (d) as the obligation to meet at reasonable times and confer in good faith with respect to wages, hours, and "other terms and conditions of employment." Read More