Analysis of an Actual Arbitration Case: Teamsters Local Union vs. CC Traffic and Property Management

Key Relevant Issues

Do You Think The Arbiter’s Ruling Was Fair? Why Or Why Not?

What Broader Ramifications Might This Ruling Have Had For That Company And That Union?

The National Labour Relations Board (NLRB) is considered to be an independent department of the U.S. federal administration. The responsibility of this department is to implement the labour law of America related to the combined negotiation and unfair labour practices. This paper mainly focuses on the analysis of an actual arbitration case which involves ‘Teamsters Local Union’ as petitioner and ‘CC Traffic and Property Management Company LLC’ as Respondent. The case number of this dispute is 13-CA-215998; 368 NLRB No. 79. Chairman Ring and Members McFerran and Kaplan have decided this particular case on 24^th September 2019 (NLRB | Public Website, 2020).

The Board of National Labour Relations acknowledged that the Motion for Default Judgment of the General Counsel depended upon the failure of the Respondent in order to record a reply to the petitioner. It has also been observed by the Board that the Respondent, namely CC Traffic and Property Management Company LLC ignored section 8 (a) (5) and (1) by failing and refusing to recognize and deal with the Union by refusing to deliver the required details of the Union, and by exceptionally stopping promises to the Interests and Benefit, Welfare and Legal and Instructive Assistance Properties of the Union (NLRB | Public Website, 2020).

The provisions of sections 102.20 of the Guidelines and Regulations of the Board states that the charges contained in a complaint shall be considered to be acknowledged if a specific answer is not noted within fourteen days from the supervision of the grievance unless good reason is shown. Additionally, it has been stated affirmatively by the modified complaint that unless the Board would receive a reply, it might find that according to a motion for default decision, the contentions in the revised charge are correct. After observing the facts and circumstances of the case, it has been concluded by the law that, the respondent, in breach of section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act, declined and refused to negotiate jointly and in good faith with the sole collective bargaining agent of his workers within the meaning of section 8 (d) of the said Act. In addition, trade under Sections 2(6) and (7) of the Act shall also be affected by arbitrary labour performances of the Respondent. However, considering the conclusions given by the law of the land, certain remedies have been provided by the law (NLRB | Public Website, 2020). The rulings or remedies of the Arbiter are discussed below:

Ruling of Arbiter

It has been observed by the Arbiter that the Respondent was involved in some arbitrary labour performances and therefore ordered the respondent to terminate and terminate to carry out certain constructive steps to enforce the guidelines of the Act. The Arbiter particularly observed that by defaulting and rejecting to recognize and negotiate with the Union, section 8(a) (5) and (1) has been breached by the Respondent. Thus the Arbiter shall instruct the Respondent, upon request, to identify and negotiate with the Union in respect of salaries, working hours, remunerations and other expressions and conditions, as a special collective bargaining agent of the Union workers and, if there exists arrangement, to include this Arrangement in the Signed Arrangement .

Furthermore, Arbiter observed that, by failing and rejecting to provide appropriate and required information to the Union, the provisions of section  8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act has been breached by the Respondent. On 21 February 2018, Arbiter shall instruct the Respondent to supply the Union with the appropriate and required information requested.

Finally, it has been observed by the Arbiter that, through unilateral changings in the expressions and state of affairs of employment of its workers, including by withdrawing assistances to the Health and Well-being, Pensions and Legitimate and Learning Aid Funds of the Union since 1 January 2018, Sections 8(a) (5) and (1) of the Act has been breached by the Respondent without providing previous notice to the Union and without allowing the Union a chance to negotiate. Therefore, Arbiter shall instruct the Respondent to preserve reform and preserve the status quo appropriately unless the Respondent bargains with the Union in good faith to reach a consensus or a deadlock. The Respondent will make all its Unit staff members, including any extra amount outstanding from the funds in accordance with Merryweather Optical Co., 240 NLRB 1213, 1216, fn. 7 (1979) on behalf of the Unit staff who have not made these offending fund donations since 1 January 2018.

In addition, the respondent must repay any expenditures resulting from his failure to make the necessary donations from the fund as provided for in Kraft Plumbing & Heating, 252 NLRB 891, 891 fn. 2 (1980), enfd. Mem. 661 F.2d 940 (9^th 1981), the worker of the Union. The amount should be measured as defined in the Ogle Protection Service 183 NLRB 682 (1970), enfd. 444 F.2d 502 (6th Cir. 1971), with rate of interest as stated in New Horizons, 283, NLRB 1173 (1987), regularly compounded as mentioned in Kentucky River Medical Center 356, NLRB 6 (2010).

Whether Running of Arbiter is Fair or Not

After analyzing the entire case, I think that the verdict given by the arbiter was reasonable and justified because it is the responsibility every labour organization situated in the United States to follow the rules and regulations mentioned by the Union. Unfortunately, in this particular case, the Respondent, namely CC Traffic and Property Management Company LLC failed to obey the previously set rules and regulations concerning the dealing with the Union, acknowledging legal privileges of the Union and carrying out lawful responsibilities by the Respondent (NLRB | Public Website, 2020).

The broader consequences of this ruling might include that the company presently will become more aware of lawful obedience to giving rules and guidelines, and their responsibilities towards the security of the rights of the Union. Similarly, the broader consequences of this ruling might include that the Union will become more careful towards the lawful structure of the Union and looking for the legitimate rights available to them from any incident of negotiating situations that which violate the legal authority of the Union or stop the workers from getting any sufficient benefit from the organization (NLRB | Public Website, 2020). It cannot be ignored that the National Labour Relations Board (NLRB) plays a vital role in the business organizations. The main aim of the Board is to force the employees to follow the laws as prescribed by the Act. If any organization violates or tries to violate the prescribed laws mentioned in the Act, the Board forces the organization to pay compensation without giving punishment. No penal provisions is mentioned under the Arbitration process. However, some other standards are also provided by the Act, such as:

Members of Non-Union remain protected by the Law on National Labor Relations. The members have the right to involve in ‘concentrated actions’, where two or more actions are taken to protect themselves against employment and the surrounding conditions (“Your Rights to Unionize”). A person can also act without help if he acts with the approval and authority of other people. Under the National Labor Relations Board as well as the relevant labour relations legislation, no ionized members are secured, and complaints heard under this privilege.

The responsibility of a union to act fairly is the responsibility which it be indebted, in that, when it comes to enforcing the complaint of an employee the Union acts without prejudice, ill intention or neutrality. Employees have a right to reasonable representation in good faith and without reprisals or unfair dealing under the NLRB. The company itself is obligated, regardless of union status, to serve all workers.

Reference

NLRB | Public Website. (2020). Retrieved 25 February 2020, from https://www.nlrb.gov/case/13-CA-215998