Quote:
Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
What I know about the decision is limited to what Meyerson said, so if something in the two paragraphs I quoted (or the rest of the piece) is incorrect, do tell.
|
I did. And you very kindly told me that you and Meyerson did not disagree with me. The two cases are simply not the same, nor was the same issue addressed in the cases.
As far as other specifics in regard to what is incorrect in the article, Meyerson states, "the board ruled that if a majority of workers signed cards or petitions asking for a vote to remove the union, the employer could decertify the union then and there without even holding that vote." This is factually incorrect. An employer does not have the right or ability under the Act to decertify a Union. Only the NLRB can decertify. The employer can withdraw recognition only if it has clear and convincing evidence that the Union no longer enjoys majority support of the bargaining unit. In addition, the employer does not "hold the vote." Again, only the NLRB can conduct a Board secret ballot election.
In the Wurtland case, if the Union presented evidence that the employees were coerced or threatened to sign the petition, then the employer would not have had the right to withdraw recognition. To my knowledge, the Union did not have that kind of evidence (or at least did not present it to the Board). Thus, we are left with the conclusion that these employees no longer wished to be represented by the union, and provided evidence of same to the employer.
aV
