Workshop: Training on Unionization and Collective Bargaining for Administrators

Negotiating a First Collective Bargaining Agreement I. Importance of the Initial Collective Bargaining Agreement II. Establishing Institutional Goals and Principles III. First Considerations at the Table: Ground rules IV. Key Contract Building Blocks for the Administration V. Other Clauses of Particular Value to the Union VII. Miscellaneous Concern

Workshop: Training on Unionization and Collective Bargaining for Administrators

Negotiating a First Collective Bargaining Agreement I. Importance of the Initial Collective Bargaining Agreement II. Establishing Institutional Goals and Principles III. First Considerations at the Table: Ground rules IV. Key Contract Building Blocks for the Administration V. Other Clauses of Particular Value to the Union VII. Miscellaneous Concern

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964- Seniority Provisions of Union Collective Bargaining Agreement Held Controlling Over EEOC Affirmative Action Hiring Program. Jersey Central Power & Light Co. v. Local 327, IBEW, 508 F.2d 687 (3d Cir. 1975).

Plaintiff, Jersey Central Power & Light Company (Jersey Central), a large public utility, was economically forced to announce a series of plant wide layoffs. The collective bargaining agreement in force between Jersey Central and various unions required that layoffs be conducted in reverse order of seniority, i.e., the last person hired is the first person to be fired. A conciliation agreement among Jersey Central, the unions and the Federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) called for the company to begin an affirmative action program designed to increase employment opportunities for women and minority workers. Plaintiff sought a declaratory judgment in federal district court as to its rights and obligations under the collective bargaining agreement, the conciliation agreement, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII) and Executive Order 11246. Plaintiff named various locals of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (the Union), the EEOC, the Office of Federal Contract Compliance (OFCC), the General Services Administration (GSA), and the New Jersey Division of Civil Rights as defendants. Jersey Central took no position as to which of the two agreements must govern the proposed layoffs. The district court held that the layoffs could not alter the pre-layoff minority proportion of the work force by more than fifteen percent. On appeal, the Third Circuit reversed and held that layoffs were to be effectuated in accordance with the provisions of the collective bargaining agreement

Union Walks in the Sixth: The Integrity of Mandatory Non-Binding Grievance Procedures in Collective Bargaining Agreements - AT & (and) T v. Communications Workers of America, AFL-CIO, The

There are many mechanisms short of industrial action which labor unions and employers use to resolve disputes. Anticipating conflict, but aiming to avoid industrial action, the two parties might place an arbitration agreement or other mandatory grievance adjustment procedure into their collective bargaining agreement. This agreement will reflect the parties\u27 understanding as to how disputes are to be resolved. This Note examines the limited circumstances in which the federal courts will enjoin union protest activity carried out in violation of a collective bargaining agreement\u27s provisions regarding dispute resolution. It focuses on the analytic inconsistency of the judicial refusal to enjoin union activities carried out in violation of a collective bargaining agreement during the pendency of a mandatory dispute resolution procedure other than arbitration

Union Walks in the Sixth: The Integrity of Mandatory Non-Binding Grievance Procedures in Collective Bargaining Agreements - AT & (and) T v. Communications Workers of America, AFL-CIO, The

There are many mechanisms short of industrial action which labor unions and employers use to resolve disputes. Anticipating conflict, but aiming to avoid industrial action, the two parties might place an arbitration agreement or other mandatory grievance adjustment procedure into their collective bargaining agreement. This agreement will reflect the parties\u27 understanding as to how disputes are to be resolved. This Note examines the limited circumstances in which the federal courts will enjoin union protest activity carried out in violation of a collective bargaining agreement\u27s provisions regarding dispute resolution. It focuses on the analytic inconsistency of the judicial refusal to enjoin union activities carried out in violation of a collective bargaining agreement during the pendency of a mandatory dispute resolution procedure other than arbitration

Project Labor Agreements

[Excerpt] The National Labor Relations Act of 1935 (NLRA) gives most private sector workers the right to join or form a labor union and to bargain collectively over wages, hours, and working conditions. The act allows workers in the construction industry to enter into a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) before a project begins. A project labor agreement (PLA) is a collective bargaining agreement that applies to a specific construction project and lasts only for the duration of the project. In February 2009, President Barack Obama signed Executive Order 13502, which encourages federal agencies to consider requiring the use of PLAs on large-scale construction projects. Regulations implementing the Executive Order (EO) went into effect in May 2010.This report begins with a description of PLAs. It then describes President Obama\u27s EO and summarizes regulations to implement it. The report then examines arguments for and against theuse of PLAs and reviews research on the economic effects of the agreements

Steering Away From the Arbitration Process: Recognizing State Law Tort Actions for Unionized Employees

When an employer and a labor union negotiate over an employment contract, their agreements are usually set forth in a collective bargaining agreement. The collective bargaining agreement defines the relationship between the employer and the unionized employees and addresses such matters as wages, hours, and other conditions of employment. Additionally, collective bargaining agreements usually include grievance procedures and arbitration clauses to resolve disputes between the employer and the unionized employees

The Inconsistent Application of Section 1113 to Expired Collective Bargaining Agreements

(Excerpt) The United States Bankruptcy Code (the “Bankruptcy Code”) allows a trustee a debtor-in-possession (“DIP”) to assume or reject a collective bargaining agreement (“CBA”). Courts are split on whether a trustee or DIP may reject an expired collective bargaining agreement under section 1113 of the Bankruptcy Code. In general, a collective bargaining agreement may be rejected notwithstanding the labor standards afforded to employees by the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”). In particular, under the NLRA, an employer that is party to a CBA is obligated to bargain with its employees until the employer either enters into a new contract or bargains to impasse– even after the CBA has expired. Consequently, a debtor may reject an expired CBA to avoid its ongoing bargaining obligations under the NLRA. Section 1113 also fails to restrict its prescription to “executory” or “unexpired” collective bargaining agreements. Some courts have held that a debtor may reject an expired CBA in bankruptcy. Other courts have disagreed and concluded that a bankruptcy court does not have the jurisdiction over an expired CBA has expired. Last year, the Supreme Court denied a petition for writ of certiorari to the Third Circuit in In re Trump Entertainment Resorts, where the court held that a debtor may reject an expired collective bargaining agreement. Consequently, courts remain divided on a debtor’s ability to reject an expired CBA

The Changing Role of Agents in Professional Basketball

This Article will discuss the status of agents for NBA players after the adoption of the new collective bargaining agreement (the 1999 Agreement ). First, this Article will summarize the relevant provisions of the prior collective bargaining agreement (the 1996 Agreement ) and illustrate how application of these provisions led the owners to declare a lockout. Next, it will review key provisions of the 1999 Agreement. It will conclude by discussing how the new CBA and the recent consolidation in the sports representation business will affect agents