The one stop source for all your human resource needs
Home • Request Info
Become a Members
Member Login
Products
Newsletter
Partners
HR One Source Staff
About Us
Services
HR Audits
Employee Hanbooks
Job Descriptions
Compensation
Investigations
Outplacement
Training
Executive Search
Labor Relations
Behavior Surveys
Other Services

Union Initiatives Meet With Resistance from the NLRB and Congress

 

The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and the United States Senate have recently delivered a “one-two” punch to organized labor.  The first set back for unions occurred when the Senate failed to bring the Employee Free Choice Act (“card check” bill) to the floor.  This was organized labor’s top legislative priority and was designed to grant a union bargaining rights, without a secret ballot election, if a majority of employees signed union cards.  The legislation passed the House 241-185 in March, but labor’s supporters could garner only 51 votes in the Senate on a vote for cloture (which requires 60 votes), thereby preventing the bill from moving to the Senate floor.  Although President Bush had promised to veto the Employee Free Choice Act, the bill’s ultimate fate is uncertain because the leading Democratic candidates for President support the legislation.

 

A decision by the NLRB that may discourage the use of “salts” by labor unions to infiltrate and organize workers.  “Salting,” is an organizing tactic in which union members seek jobs with nonunion employers in order to organize from within.  In 1995, the Supreme Court ruled that an employer cannot reject an applicant solely because he or she is a “salt” encouraged or paid by a union to seek employment for the purpose of organizing the workforce.  If an employer was found guilty of discriminating against the “salt,” the NLRB calculated an employer’s back pay liability from the date the salt was rejected until the NLRB issued a final ruling.  This usually meant an employer faced years of back pay and interest exposure.

 

The Board recently rejected this approach and determined that any back pay calculation should assume the salt was seeking employment for a specific purpose with a limited duration.  Instead of requiring an employer to prove the rejected applicant was not seeking indefinite employment, the NLRB concluded that the union and the salt “are in the best position” to prove how long the applicant would have worked.

 

If you have any questions regarding Unions or the NLRB; HR-OneSource can provide help.  Please contact Jack Lipovac, SPHR, lipovacj@hr-onesource.com at (515) 221-1718.

 

Back to the Newsletter

 

 Copyright © 2003-2007 HR-OneSource