Tag Archives: Unite Here

Union Decertification Case Law

The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, in SFO Goodnite Inn v. NLRB, ____F.3d____ (D.C. Cir. Nov. 20, 2012), enforced  a National Labor Relations Board order finding a California hotel improperly withdrew recognition from a UNITE HERE local, rejecting the hotel’s argument that it lawfully relied on anti-union petitions signed by a majority of its employees.

In the decision, the court approved the NLRB’s interpretation of Hearst.

[T]he Board has now articulated a clear line for applying the Hearst presumption of taint in “the narrow circumstance where an employer unlawfully instigates or propels a decertification campaign, and then invokes the results of that campaign to justify its unilateral withdrawal of recognition from its employee’s representative.”

The Board explained that the Hearst presumption applies where the employer is directly involved in advancing a decertification petition, whereas the Master Slack test applies where the employer committed unfair labor practices unrelated to the petition that may have contributed to the erosion of support for the union.

ok

Advertisements

Leave a comment

Filed under courts, District Court, labor, legal decision, NLRB, union

CBA successorship clause

Unite Here Local 25 sought an injunction against Madison Hotel in Washington DC, compelling Defendants to arbitrate under the CBA in Unite Here Local 25 v. Madison Ownership, LLC.  The Union alleged Defendants breached the CBA by selling Madison Hotel without requiring the purchaser to be bound by the CBA terms.

The federal court has ruled that the parties must engage in discovery regarding the successorship clause of the CBA, in order for the court to determine if the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction under 301 of the LMRA.  Basically, Defendants argue the CBA was not in effect during the relevant time period.  You can access the decision here.

via Courthouse News Service.

Leave a comment

Filed under courts, labor, legal decision, union