Quote:
Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
If I understand you correctly, Meyerson erred in saying the employer "could decertify" the union instead of saying that the employer "was withdrawing recognition" of the union. This strikes me as a technical error that would not mislead those unfamiliar with labor law and would be understood as such by those who do, but maybe I'm missing something.
|
An employer withdrawing recognition of a Union is not the same as decertification. It is not simply a technical error. It presumes that in both situations that the Union is gone. As the Board said in Levitz Furniture, an employer wthdraws recognition at its own peril. In a withdrawal situation, the Union can very well still be the representative (for a variety of reasons), and an unlawful withdrawal can have catastrophic results on the employer.
Quote:
Here's my problem. The NLRB ruled that a petition with employee signatures is deemed evidence sufficient to establish "the conclusion that these employees no longer wished to be represented by the union," in your words. You suggest that there's a rebuttable presumption that such evidence is not coerced. At the same time, you believe that when workers submit the functional equivalent of this petition -- card check recognition under Neutrality Agreement organizing drives -- saying that they do want to unionize, that election is presumptively coerced, such that you "have a real problem with any attempts to eliminate a secret ballot election."
Notwithstanding that you can surely square it with current application of the labor laws, this makes no sense, unless it boils down to the fact that you are OK when workers vote anti-union and would rather than they don't unionize.
|
I'm not sure where I ever stated that I "believe" anything in regard to the Board, secret ballot elections or card-check recognition. There are more facts to the Dana case than Meyerson bothered to put into those two paragraphs. Quoting my response to my thoughts about EFCA is not the same as me saying that I believe that there should never be voluntary recognition. EFCA guts secret-ballot elections and does not institute a very meaningful alternative.
I'm not sure why you think that I am anti-Union or as to why you think that I am taking the position that secret ballot is the only way to get a union in to a bargaining unit but not the only way to get one out. If I left that impression than I apologize for not being more precise with my language. Meyerson's article is biased. I'm sure that he would be the first one to tell you that. All I was trying to do was to point out that he is not comparing apples to apples by citing to those two cases.
aV
