February 8, 2012

Decertification Vote Allowed to Proceed Despite Employer Voluntary Recognition

One of the National Labor Relations Board’s decisions on organized labor’s dart board is Dana Corp. governing voluntary recognition of a union by an employer.  In the Dana Corp. decision and subsequent regulations authored by the Board, the Board openly criticized the efficacy of card checks as the basis for an employer voluntary recognition of a union absent the more trustworthy secret ballot election.  The Board therefore mandated that employees be provided notice of the employer’s voluntary recognition and a reasonable opportunity to void it by filing a decertification petition within 45 days.  The requisite notice to trigger commencement the 45 day period must comply with Board regulations.  Absent employee filing of a decertification petition during the 45-day period, the recognition bar or the contract bar on such petitions will be in effect. 

The 2007 decision provoked a great deal of fury on the part of unions who were starting to rely heavily on corporate campaigns coupled with neutrality agreements and voluntary recognition as the preferred means to organize large employers.  The Dana Corp. decision threw a monkey wrench into that approach by providing a potential employee and employer out.  The Dana Corp. rules were recently applied by our very own Region 19 office out of Seattle in a case entitled AT&T Mobility LLC.  In late 2009, AT&T voluntarily recognized the Communication Workers of America as the representative for network employees in 11 different locations throughout Washington, based on a majority showing of authorization cards from the affected employees.  The resulting bargaining unit was folded into another unit and became subject to a preexisting collective bargaining agreement. 

In order to comply with the Dana Corp. requirements, requisite notices were posted for 45 days.  Meanwhile, an employee was gathering signatures for a decertification petition and filed it with the Board but filed it well after the 45-day period had elapsed.  The union sought to dismiss the petition as untimely and the regional office, upon investigating, learned that one of the notices had not been posted for the entire 45 days; apparently at some point, someone had removed the notice for an indeterminate period of time and the employer, upon noticing it was gone, posted another notice.  However, there was no question that it had not been posted for 45 consecutive days.  The Regional Director for Region 19 determined that the decertification petition should therefore be allowed proceed to election since the notice posting at one location failed to meet the requirements of Dana Corp

The AT&T Mobility decision serves as a reminder to employers and unions involved in voluntary recognition that the Dana Corp requirements will be strictly construed unless and until modified or overturned by the Obama Board.

 

© 2002-2012 by Williams Kastner ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

About the Author

Member

Judd Lees has been practicing labor and employment law since 1979 and is a Member in the Seattle office. He is the chair of the firm’s Labor and Employment Law Practice Group. Mr. Lees represents both unionized and nonunionized employers in the private and public sector, including clients in the construction, manufacturing and the transportation industries before federal and state agencies, including the Department of Labor, National Labor Relations Board and the Washington State Department of Labor and Industries.

206-233-2893

Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. NLR does not accept advertising from attorneys or law firms. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com  intended to be an advertisement or a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.