Question for my union comrades
Question for my union comrades
If there is language in an article that is along the lines of "until the expiration of the agreement", does that mean that whatever is contained in that article is no longer legally binding once a contract expires? I feel like that should be obvious, but my union rep seems to think that's not the case. I do know that terms and conditions of a CBA are to continue under an expired contract (besides strikes/lockouts) but if that language lives in the document, then is that how an employer can get around maintaining whatever benefit it's tied to?
I feel like I read a labornotes article that spoke to this but I CANNOT find it. If anyone can help I would be grateful!
When contracts expire you enter the status quo period you mentioned where both parties are expected to negotiate in good faith and maintain the majority of agreements. This usually does not apply to striking, of course, and you almost always need to strike to get a good contract.
To answer your question I think we'd have to be able to read your whole contract to be certain. Sometimes contracts contradict themselves, or at least seem to according to the lawyers both parties have to hire, so even if there's a line that says, "this applies until the contract expires" it may be contradicted by (1) the (enforced) law around status quo, (2) state law, or (3) other articles in the agreement.
Employers are not supposed to make any changes to working conditions during status quo, if that is helpful information. They are expected to bargain any changes and the union can usually file various legal complaints against the employer when they do inevitably change working conditions unilaterally. Though it should also be mentioned that the direct legal consequences are usually incredibly minor, so unions mostly use them as propaganda to make sure their members are pissed off and ready to strike.
To add on, the status quo period, at least for our union, doesn't mean you can't still file grievances (formal process for remedying contract violation). It just means you can't take those cases to arbitration (third party judge decides on case). Its usually good to use unresolved grievances and any unfair labor practices (like the aforementioned unilateral changes in working conditions) to add leverage to negotiations and use settling them as part of the final agreement with the employer.
I think we have a ULP already (we're in the middle of negotiating a first contract), if not multiple, but my union rep never mentions them to us. He did a while ago mention that we should keep them in our back pockets but has yet to mention using it as a strategy again. We're just cracking economics, so I hope we can use that but we have pretty much just been walked all over so far.
The agency lawyer told our rep to stop reading one of our proposals mid-sentence because she said they would read it in caucus and he just acquiesced lol
Thanks for that info! We are bargaining our first contract with a unit of about 30 employees. The lawyer used by the agency is very skilled; she added this language to an article. As we were discussing it with our union rep, he said it doesn't really mean anything, but why would the businesses lawyer want to include it if it didn't give them an edge? Idk, the local we decided to unionize with is weak and has shown to be pretty fucking yellow and unsupportive, it's been really demoralizing
Employers have all kinds of dirty tricks during negotiations. One of their favorite things to do is to force you to bargain about things that are no real concession on their part. This amounts to a delay tactic. Delays are always in their favor as it means longer before getting your next contract and it also means sapping your resources, including the energy of your bargaining committee.
So it may be that the company sees this clause as beneficial for itself or it may be that they are just trying to confuse you. This is where you'd want your lawyer to be truly competent and able to provide reasonable explanations for what to do about it. It is not a bad tactic to let the employer put something unenforceable in there so that you can focus on what you actually care about. But it really, really has to be unenforceable.
Your union rep probably isn't a lawyer but your union should have one. I would recommend finding a polite and friendly way to get your union rep to ask the lawyer ASAP and to have them explain what's up with the clause to your bargaining committee. Half-decent reps usually love the opportunity to explain their own angle towards organizing and strategy.