This preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.
Unformatted text preview: Case 33 Background Union represents production and maintenance employees. Tennessee= Right to Work state Union shop contracts can not be negotiated under state law. Collective Bargaining agreement was Negotiated Effective September 12, 1986 September 11, 1989. Did not contain a union security or agency shop clause. September 10, 1987 Union sent a memorandum to all bargaining unit employees who were not members of the union. It read: Company Absence of valid union security clause LMRA requires that exclusive bargaining representative must act fairly and impartially on behalf of all employees. Labor union breaches its duty of fair representation. Can not charge or threaten to charge nonmembers the costs of processing grievances. September 10 and November 20, 1987 Especially in right to work states where union security clauses are prohibited. Represented discriminatory treatment to nonmembers. Indicated that union would attempt to collect future payments for grievance processing. continued Union was attempting to coerce nonmember employees to join the union. Violated rights of section 7 of the act to refrain from joining the union. Union must cease efforts to impose and force employees to pay such a discriminatory fee. Union Grievance processing fee was reasonable and for services rendered. Failure to charge any fee would treat nonmembers and members unequally. November 20 notice. Stated it would not interfere with employee rights. Union would not refuse to process nonmembers grievances. LMRA did not mandate that unions provide this service free of charge. Union should not have to give free representation to nonmembers. Established in section 19 of LMRA Union may charge a grievance processing fee to nonmembers. Union is well within its rights and case should be dismissed. ...
View Full Document
- Spring '08