Decertification article

[alecfromtherock]

Here is a good read involving Decertifying a Union? The Employer’s Bill of Rights

Link

The National Labor Relations Act (“NLRAâ€) provides a process for employees to petition the National Labor Relations Board (“Boardâ€) for a “decertification election†which can lead to the termination of the union’s status as bargaining agent. Only employees may petition for such decertification once they have obtained signatures from at least 30% of the employees/union members who are considered part of the bargaining unit. Once the employees have filed a petition, a hearing is usually conducted before the Board to determine the appropriateness of the petition, the Board’s jurisdiction and the union’s status as a labor organization. Following the hearing, the Board will typically issue a decision regarding whether or not the petition is appropriate and can proceed to an election. The election will usually be held within four to six weeks from the time employees file the petition. To prevail in ousting the union, the employees need a simple majority of those who actually vote; not a majority of those in the bargaining unit. Ties go to the union.

1) obtained signatures from at least 30% of the employees/union members who are considered part of the bargaining unit.

The player reps, Trevor Linden and Bob Goodenow (executive committee) would be considered the bargaining unit for the PA.

32 people X 30% = 10 signatures for the petition.

2) The NLRB would have a hearing to determine the appropriateness of the petition union’s status as a labor organization. If the petition is approved by the NLRB the general vote for decertification commences 4-6 weeks after the petition was filed.

In other words reason for decertification would have to be given to the NLRB from the PA.

Decertification is not as easy as some posters would have us believe.

Click to read more...

 

[mudcrutch79]

Great, more shoddy legal analysis.

1) obtained signatures from at least 30% of the employees/union members who are considered part of the bargaining unit.

The player reps, Trevor Linden and Bob Goodenow (executive committee) would be considered the bargaining unit for the PA.

Wrong. The bargaining unit consists of all the workers. They all have a vote on CBA matters. Goodenow would not have a vote-he's an employee of the bargaining unit, not a member of it.

2) The NLRB would have a hearing to determine the appropriateness of the petition union’s status as a labor organization. If the petition is approved by the NLRB the general vote for decertification commences 4-6 weeks after the petition was filed.

In other words reason for decertification would have to be given to the NLRB from the PA.

For Christ's sake. Read the article you're linking too a little more closely. The reason that they're discussing reasons and whatnot is because it's by an employer group, and the concern will be that the employers have offered improper inducements to get rid of the union. If a majority of union members want to get rid of the union, and management hasn't improperly fueled the desire, the PA has to justify nothing.

There needs to be some sort of test before people can spout off about what the law is. This place is virtually unreadable because of stuff like this.

 

[Weary]

There needs to be some sort of test before people can spout off about what the law is. This place is virtually unreadable because of stuff like this.

But there may be others with the same misconceptions. By correcting them you inform not just the original poster, but also other misinformed parties.

 

[Jarqui]

In terms of management advice, not all of that advice in that article is applicable in Canada and could cause real problems.

 

[Weary]

In terms of management advice, not all of that advice in that article is applicable in Canada and could cause real problems.

Yes. The two-country facet makes this whole thing much more complex. I think Canada requires a higher percentage of the bargaining unit to petition for decertification as well. I'm not sure how that would be handled.

 

[Wetcoaster]

Great, more shoddy legal analysis.



Wrong. The bargaining unit consists of all the workers. They all have a vote on CBA matters. Goodenow would not have a vote-he's an employee of the bargaining unit, not a member of it.



For Christ's sake. Read the article you're linking too a little more closely. The reason that they're discussing reasons and whatnot is because it's by an employer group, and the concern will be that the employers have offered improper inducements to get rid of the union. If a majority of union members want to get rid of the union, and management hasn't improperly fueled the desire, the PA has to justify nothing.

There needs to be some sort of test before people can spout off about what the law is. This place is virtually unreadable because of stuff like this.

You are correct, this procedure applies to a very narrow set of circumstances which should be obvious since the article involves "The Employer’s Bill of Rights".

In the NFL case the NFLPA had the members sign decertification notices and the filed them with the NLRB presto - no union representing the players and antitrust laws in effect. The indiividual players then retained the former union executive and leagl counsel to advise them.

In the NBA Lary Fleischer with the leadership of Micael Jordan and Patrick Ewing had the players sign decertifcation notices. Fleischer walked in, slapped them down in front of David Stern and the NBA backed off on its attempts to "harden" the cap and remove the salary cap exceptions.

In the last dispute MLB threatened decertification which they were only able to do since the 1998 Curt Flood Act removed baseball's judicial exemption from antitrust law. MLB owners backed down on the cap demand and instituted a luxury tax.

 

[Wetcoaster]

Yes. The two-country facet makes this whole thing much more complex. I think Canada requires a higher percentage of the bargaining unit to petition for decertification as well. I'm not sure how that would be handled.

Remember that is only the petiton to get it before the NLRB, there still has to be a vote by the union members at large.

 

[Gee Wally]

getting a Union to decertify is akin to putting toothpaste back into a tube.
I was involved in such a thing in 1983. (Actually let me correct that..I was exposed to such a thing...since being involved would have been illegal.)

Not impossible ...but not easy.
It is 100% up to the Bargaining Unit to do it on it's own.

If it can be proven that management has Threatened, Interrogate, Promised, or Spied..the pettition will be thrown out by the NLRB.

Also remember T.I.P.S.

 

[Egil]

Wally, if that is the case, then doesn't the NHL simply need to spy on the NHLPA, and thereby prevent the Union from being able to decertify?

 

[Larionov]

Decertification is an idle threat from the players. The fact is that decertification doesn't work for the average player -- only the superstars would truly benefit. As soon as you decertify, you lose all the sweet perks that come along with a CBA -- pension, medical benefits, even per diems would be up in the air. Decertification would never pass a vote amongst the 'PA membership. It's almost as empty a threat as the new "Players League"...

 

[Gee Wally]

Wally, if that is the case, then doesn't the NHL simply need to spy on the NHLPA, and thereby prevent the Union from being able to decertify?

I don't know why the NHL would ever want to prevent that.

They also don't really need to spy ot interrogate. Most of the players mouth off right after meetings anyhow.

It's really the threaten and promise aspects that gotta be watched.

But...if any of four items could be proven by the NHLPA , then there wouldn't be a vote...or a vote wouldn't be certified.... and the NHL would be in deep deep doo-doo.

 

[Weary]

As soon as you decertify, you lose all the sweet perks that come along with a CBA -- pension, medical benefits, even per diems would be up in the air.

I work in a non-union job and have all these things. Wouldn't they be offered by NHL teams wanting to attract the best employees?

 

[Wetcoaster]

Wally, if that is the case, then doesn't the NHL simply need to spy on the NHLPA, and thereby prevent the Union from being able to decertify?

No.

 

[Wetcoaster]

Decertification is an idle threat from the players. The fact is that decertification doesn't work for the average player -- only the superstars would truly benefit. As soon as you decertify, you lose all the sweet perks that come along with a CBA -- pension, medical benefits, even per diems would be up in the air. Decertification would never pass a vote amongst the 'PA membership. It's almost as empty a threat as the new "Players League"...

It worked for the NFL.

Th threat of decertication worked for the NBA and MLB.

 

[Gee Wally]

I work in a non-union job and have all these things. Wouldn't they be offered by NHL teams wanting to attract the best employees?

yup !

 

[shveik]

Wally, if that is the case, then doesn't the NHL simply need to spy on the NHLPA, and thereby prevent the Union from being able to decertify?

But would not that in itself be against the law, perhaps even *criminal* law? So if it is proven, somebody would go to jail. Trying to do something like that on purpose is not going to help anything.

It looks like the clause is there to protect the union members against corruption/intimidation by the employer. I do not think the NRLB would allow it to become the instrument for manipulation of the union's decisions by the employer, something it is designed to protect against.

 

[alecfromtherock]

In the last dispute MLB threatened decertification which they were only able to do since the 1998 Curt Flood Act removed baseball's judicial exemption from antitrust law. MLB owners backed down on the cap demand and instituted a luxury tax.

Then I stand corrected that the petition would have to be 730 X 30% = 219 players.

50+1% would then be needed to pass decertification = 373 players if the petition was NLRB approved.

It would be sad if the only vote the NHLPA held during this lockout was a decertification vote.

Based on the above posts the majority of players(non-superstars) would not benefit from decertifying their own union and thus it stands little chance of ever happening.

Wetcoaster does the NHL have a judicial exemption from antitrust law?

 

[me2]

Then I stand corrected that the petition would have to be 730 X 30% = 219 players.

50+1% would then be needed to pass decertification = 373 players if the petition was NLRB approved.

It would be sad if the only vote the NHLPA held during this lockout was a decertification vote.

Based on the above posts the majority of players(non-superstars) would not benefit from decertifying their own union and thus it stands little chance of ever happening.

Wetcoaster does the NHL have a judicial exemption from antitrust law?

The minority of wealthiest players generate most of the agents money plus Goodenow controls the agents via decertification threats. Players get their advice from Goodenow and their agent.They haven't listened to anyone else besides Goodenow/agents so far.So if Goodenow says decertify, why would the lower tier players vote to oppose decertification?

 

[hockeytown9321]

Then I stand corrected that the petition would have to be 730 X 30% = 219 players.

50+1% would then be needed to pass decertification = 373 players if the petition was NLRB approved.

It would be sad if the only vote the NHLPA held during this lockout was a decertification vote.

Based on the above posts the majority of players(non-superstars) would not benefit from decertifying their own union and thus it stands little chance of ever happening.

Wetcoaster does the NHL have a judicial exemption from antitrust law?

Sure, the lower end players would make alot less than they are now. But, if the NHL's next offer is somethnig like a $30 millon cap, those lower end players aren't really any worse off decertifying. you also have to remember the players have a hatred for Bettman and would probably do it out of spite, and they probably wouldn't be decertified for long since the NHL will be desperate or a settlement.

 

[Wetcoaster]

Then I stand corrected that the petition would have to be 730 X 30% = 219 players.

50+1% would then be needed to pass decertification = 373 players if the petition was NLRB approved.

It would be sad if the only vote the NHLPA held during this lockout was a decertification vote.

Based on the above posts the majority of players(non-superstars) would not benefit from decertifying their own union and thus it stands little chance of ever happening.

Wetcoaster does the NHL have a judicial exemption from antitrust law?

A petition is only needed if members are trying to get the union removed as a bargaining agent and there is some dispute over the issue. Otherwise the union can simply file individual decertifaction notices where it is decertifying for the purpose of relying upon antitrust law in place of labour law as was done by the NFL.

No, the NHL, NFL and NBA have no judicial examption.

The Curt Flood Act pretty much removed baseball's judicial exemption as it applied to labour relations.

 

[fan mao rong]

.





Ther re needs to be some sort of test before people can spout off about what the law is. This place is virtually unreadable because of stuff like this.

Yeah, you are right. Agree with that. How about yourself, and that pack from British Columbia? You've developed a revisionist history and alternative legal system, and the uninquiring minds here just lap it up. You people throw so much against the wall , who wants to clean it all up. It's like cleaning up a stable.