Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 30 JUNE 2017

Case Demonstrates Perils Of Refusing To Discuss Issues With Union

Proskauer Rose LLP
Proskauer Rose LLP
Contributor
Proskauer Rose LLP

Proskauer Rose LLP

Firm Overview Proskauer is an elite global law firm with more than 900 lawyers across key financial...

View firm profile
Explore more from Proskauer Rose LLP

A significant change in NLRB precedent during the last few years was the added requirement that an employer bargain over discretionary aspects of discipline in the period between the union...

United StatesEmployment and HR

A significant change in NLRB precedent during the last few years was the added requirement that an employer bargain over discretionary aspects of discipline in the period between the union acquiring representational rights and the first contract. Given the limited set of circumstances one doesn't see a whole lot of these cases. A recent NLRB case, however, demonstrates how problems can arise by a failure to discuss discipline/discharge with the union at any stage. In a broader context, the case shows why,– if there is some chance an obligation to bargain exists, even a slim one,– that it is probably better to have the discussion with the union.

In Security Walls, Inc., 365 NLRB No. 99 (June 15, 2017), the employer, a security contractor, provided armed guards at an IRS facility in Austin, Texas. When the employer took over the contract it started to bargain with the union but did reach agreement until 13 months later.

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

See more popular content from