Advertisement

June 19, 2013

United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union, AFL-CIO, CLC (Trimas Corporation d/b/a Cequent Towing Products, and an individual(25-CB-008891 et al.; 357 NLRB No. 48) Goshen, IN,

 

The Board majority (Chairman Liebman, Members Becker and Hayes) found that the Respondent Union violated its duty of fair representation by requiring employees it represents who are not union members and who seek objector status under Communications Workers of America v. Beck to assert their objection on an annual basis.  The majority found that the Respondent failed to present a legitimate justification for its annual renewal requirement sufficient to justify the burden the requirement imposes on an individual seeking to extend an objection, and thus that the requirement is arbitrary under the duty of fair representation, and that in imposing it on the Charging Parties—and refusing to honor their specific request that their Beck objections be permanent and continuing in nature—the Respondent violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act.  The majority decision further found, however, that the requirement was neither discriminatory nor undertaken in bad faith.

Member Hayes, concurring in part and dissenting in part, agreed with the violation found, but further explained his view that the annual renewal requirement infringes on employees’ fundamental Section 7 right to refrain from assisting a union and must therefore be analyzed under Section 8(a)(3) and 8(b)(1)(A) rather than under the more deferential duty-of-fair-representation standard.  Member Hayes further dissented from the finding that the Respondent’s annual renewal requirement was not discriminatory.

Member Pearce, dissenting in part, agreed with the majority that the appropriate legal framework for analyzing this case is the duty of fair representation under Section 8(b)(1)(A), but would dismiss the allegation because the Union’s annual-renewal requirement rationally serves its legitimate interests and was well supported by legal precedent at the time of its actions, and that accordingly the General Counsel did not meet his burden of proving that the Union’s action was arbitrary, discriminatory, or in bad faith.

Charges filed by Individuals.  Administrative Law Judge John H. West issued his decision August 6, 2009. Chairman Liebman and Members Becker, Pearce, and Hayes participated

© Copyright 2013 National Labor Relations Board

About the Author

The National Labor Relations Board is an independent federal agency vested with the power to safeguard employees' rights to organize and to determine whether to have unions as their bargaining representative. The agency also acts to prevent and remedy unfair labor practices committed by private sector employers and unions.

866-667-6572

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.