- Nov 9, 2003
- 16,512
- 5,865
Let's see if some of this sounds familiar....
* The Totality of the Conduct Doctrine
# In determining whether parties are negotiating in good faith, there are no precise standards which may be used. The Board looks at the "totality of the conduct" to determine whether it appears that, all things considered, the party is making a legitimate effort to reach an agreement.
# Under Section 8(d), neither party is required to make concessions or agree to a proposal. As a result, hard bargaining by itself is presumably legal.
# The absence of good faith is generally characterized through a showing that the employer is going through the motions of negotiating, but with no intent to reach an agreement. Surface bargaining, as this tactic is often called, is evidence of bad faith if it appears that the intent of the employer is to avoid agreement rather than to reach agreement.
# Some other factors which might be considered in finding bad faith include:
* Causing long delays or postponements in scheduling bargaining sessions,
* Refusing the union even minor access to workers (posting of notices on bulletin boards) before formal negotiations have begun,
* Giving minor concessions on some items with no negotiations over major items,
* Making no counterproposals at all to the union,
* Insisting on procedural formalities for bargaining with little discussion of mandatory items,
* Making direct appeals to the membership,
* Changing conditions of employment after impasse has been reached, but before negotiation of major issues has been conducted.
# Problems of Proof of Bad Faith -- Boulwarism
# Case XVIII-A: This case is based on the famous management bargaining tactic known as Boulwarism. Lemuel Boulware was the chief management negotiator for the General Electric Corporation from the 1940's through the 1950's and 1960's. He devised and implemented a bargaining strategy which epitomized the minimum standards of the absence of good faith in collective bargaining.
This case outlines the basic tactics of Boulwarism which became the foundation for the legal dispute over the tactic. The essential elements of Boulwarism, for legal purposes were:
1) Offering to the union a packaged proposal on an "all or nothing, take it or leave it" basis.
2) Exhibiting, at the table, a willingness to explain its proposal and to listen to counterproposals, but refusing pro forma (as a matter of form) to make any changes in the complete package, and
3) Appealing directly to the workforce to encourage acceptance of the package, by providing detailed information on the basis for the unilaterally established package.
Boulwarism was determined by the Board and the appellate court to represent bad faith bargaining. In the court decision, the critical issue was the combination of tactics, each of which might have been legal in the abstract. By combining specific tactics which may be legal into an overall effort to circumvent the union, the company had engaged in bad faith bargaining.
Source
Jim
* The Totality of the Conduct Doctrine
# In determining whether parties are negotiating in good faith, there are no precise standards which may be used. The Board looks at the "totality of the conduct" to determine whether it appears that, all things considered, the party is making a legitimate effort to reach an agreement.
# Under Section 8(d), neither party is required to make concessions or agree to a proposal. As a result, hard bargaining by itself is presumably legal.
# The absence of good faith is generally characterized through a showing that the employer is going through the motions of negotiating, but with no intent to reach an agreement. Surface bargaining, as this tactic is often called, is evidence of bad faith if it appears that the intent of the employer is to avoid agreement rather than to reach agreement.
# Some other factors which might be considered in finding bad faith include:
* Causing long delays or postponements in scheduling bargaining sessions,
* Refusing the union even minor access to workers (posting of notices on bulletin boards) before formal negotiations have begun,
* Giving minor concessions on some items with no negotiations over major items,
* Making no counterproposals at all to the union,
* Insisting on procedural formalities for bargaining with little discussion of mandatory items,
* Making direct appeals to the membership,
* Changing conditions of employment after impasse has been reached, but before negotiation of major issues has been conducted.
# Problems of Proof of Bad Faith -- Boulwarism
# Case XVIII-A: This case is based on the famous management bargaining tactic known as Boulwarism. Lemuel Boulware was the chief management negotiator for the General Electric Corporation from the 1940's through the 1950's and 1960's. He devised and implemented a bargaining strategy which epitomized the minimum standards of the absence of good faith in collective bargaining.
This case outlines the basic tactics of Boulwarism which became the foundation for the legal dispute over the tactic. The essential elements of Boulwarism, for legal purposes were:
1) Offering to the union a packaged proposal on an "all or nothing, take it or leave it" basis.
2) Exhibiting, at the table, a willingness to explain its proposal and to listen to counterproposals, but refusing pro forma (as a matter of form) to make any changes in the complete package, and
3) Appealing directly to the workforce to encourage acceptance of the package, by providing detailed information on the basis for the unilaterally established package.
Boulwarism was determined by the Board and the appellate court to represent bad faith bargaining. In the court decision, the critical issue was the combination of tactics, each of which might have been legal in the abstract. By combining specific tactics which may be legal into an overall effort to circumvent the union, the company had engaged in bad faith bargaining.
Source
Jim
