The U.S. House of Representatives passed a bill that would place strict deadlines for employers and newly certified unions to reach a first collective bargaining agreement (CBA).
The bill, which garnered some bi-partisan support to pass the GOP-led House, would potentially place the terms of such initial collective bargaining agreements in the hands of federal arbitrators, instead of being negotiated to conclusion by the parties.
Current Legal Framework for Initial Union Contracts
Once a union gains recognition as the exclusive bargaining representative of a group of employees (either through an election or recognition by the employer), the employer and the union currently are required to bargain in good faith towards a CBA. Nothing under the current law, the National Labor Relations Act, requires either party to make any concession or to acquiesce to the other party’s demands or proposals. As long as the parties negotiate in good faith, they fulfill their legal obligation.
Initial CBAs currently take, on average, well over a year to be negotiated—in part because they necessarily include any number of work rules, wage rates, benefits, and myriad other terms and conditions of employment specific to the employer’s operations.
How the House Bill Would Change the Process
The House bill would short-circuit that timeframe. Under the bill, if the parties have not reached a full agreement within 90 days of commencement of bargaining, a federal mediator would be appointed to assist the parties toward reaching a negotiated agreement. If, however, no such full CBA is reached within 30 additional days, a panel of three arbitrators would be authorized to decide the terms of the CBA, which would remain in place for a period of two years.
Opponents of the bill argue it creates unrealistic deadlines and interjects federal mediators and arbitrators into a decision-making role without any appreciable knowledge of the employers’ specific operations or industry.
While the language of the bill focuses on the setting of wage rates, it fails to address or even comprehend the large number of other issues which must be addressed during bargaining for an initial contract (e.g., grievance and arbitration, layoff/recall, bumping, paid time off, holidays, other leaves, management rights, dress codes, attendance policies, hours of work, overtime and other premium pay, disciplinary matters, subcontracting, just to name a partial list).
It is unlikely a panel of arbitrators would be able to properly address all the issues involved in a manner that is specific to the employer’s operations, to any of the parties’ (or employees’) satisfaction. Opponents also argue the measure violates the U.S. Constitution by allowing the government to impose contractual terms on private parties.
The bill now moves to the Senate, where a similar bill recently has been introduced, with a similar level of bi-partisan support. We will keep you posted on any further developments in this legislation.