Posts tagged pre-hire agreement
Get Ready for NLRB Rule Making It Harder to Decertify Unions: 5 Key Steps for Employers
September 27, 2024 // The Board’s final amendment reinstates its 2001 decision in Staunton Fuel, establishing a low threshold for demonstrating majority union employee support in the construction industry. Under Staunton Fuel, a union can become a duly authorized representative under section 9(a) of the NLRA based solely on collective bargaining language – that the impacted employees may never see – negotiated under Section 8(f) (often referred to as a “pre-hire agreement”). Under section 8(f), construction industry employers may choose to become “union” without any showing of employee support. By readopting this standard, the Board concludes that the mere presence of language suggesting that the union obtained recognition in the 8(f) agreement is enough to confer majority status under Section 9(a).
Is It Really About Employee Voices? The National Labor Relations Board Continues its Union-Friendly Trend
August 7, 2024 // The new regulations also contain a revision that will affect construction companies. Under the NLRA, an employer cannot recognize and bargain with a union lest the union has demonstrated that it represents a majority of the employees (through cards or an election, as noted above). Section 8(f) of the NLRA provides a limited exception to this rule, and it applies solely to the construction industry. Under Section 8(f), a construction industry employer can enter into a "pre-hire" agreement with a union and negotiate employment terms regardless of whether the employees support the union. Prior to 2020, the Board allowed an employer and union to convert an "8(f) agreement" into a normal collective bargaining agreement simply by stating that the union had demonstrated majority support to the employer. That language was sufficient to block a decertification petition or petition from a rival union during the so-called "contract bar" period (the term of the labor agreement, up to three years). No evidence would be examined to attack the contract language – this provision was enough.