Raw Preview of Attachment:(refer to the detailed question and attachment below)
DAC and International Union (IU), two parties with a long history of collective bargaining, entered into a Letter of Agreement (LOA or Agreement) setting forth ground rules for additional union organizing, procedures for voluntary recognition upon proof of majority support, and substantive issues that collective bargaining would address if and when DAC recognized the IU at a nonunion facility. The issues are whether, in entering into and maintaining the LOA, DAC rendered unlawful support to the IU in violation of Section 8(a)(2) and (1) of the Act, and whether the IU accepted that support in violation of Section 8(b)(1)(A). Section 8(a)(2) of the Act prohibits an employer from “dominat[ing] or interfer(ing) with the formation or administration of any labor organization or contribut(ing) financial or other support to it.” The primary legislative purpose of Section 8(a)(2) “was to eradicate company unionism, a practice whereby employers would establish and control in-house labor organizations in order to prevent organization by autonomous unions” [I. Higgins,Developing Labor Law 418-419 (5th ed. 2006)]. In the words of the Act's chief sponsor, Senator Robert Wagner:Genuine collective bargaining is the only way to attain equality of bargaining power…. The greatest obstacles to collective bargaining are employer-dominated unions, which have multiplied with amazing rapidity…. 1 Leg. Hist. 15 (NLRA 1935). Section 8(a)(2) is grounded in the notion that foisting a union on unconsenting employees and thus impeding employees from pursuing representation by outside unions are incompatible with “genuine collective bargaining.” It is in this context that the statutory prohibition on “financial or other support” to unions must be understood. DAC, the employer, manufactures automotive parts at about 90 facilities throughout the United States, Canada, and as many as 30 other countries. DAC and the IU have a longstanding bargaining relationship: the IU represents DAC's employees in nine bargaining units at various locations covering 2,200 to 2,300 employees in total. This matter arose at DAC's St. Joe, Missouri, facility, where DAC employs about 305 unrepresented employees and where, in early 2008, the IU began an organizing campaign. On August 6, 2008, DAC and the IU entered into the LOA, which set forth a framework to govern their relationship in the future, in the event that a majority of the St. Joe's employees chose to designate the IU as their exclusive collective bargaining representative. The LOA's introductory statement of purpose recognized “that dramatic changes in the domestic automotive market have created new quality, productivity and competitiveness challenges for the automotive component supplier.” It further stated that DAC and the IU believed that “these challenges will be more effectively met through a partnership that is more positive, non-adversarial and with constructive attitudes toward each other.” The introductory statement continued:Employee freedom to choose is a paramount concern of DAC as well as the IU. We both believe that membership in a union is a matter of personal choice and acknowledge that if a majority of employees wish to be represented by a union, DAC will recognize that choice. The Union and the Company will not allow anyone to be intimidated or coerced into a decision on this important matter. The parties are also committed to an expeditious procedure for determining majority status. The LOA then set forth ground rules for both parties that would be applicable in any organizing campaign the IU might undertake at a nonunion DAC facility. DAC agreed to inform employees that it was “totally neutral regarding the issue of representation by the Union” and that it has “a constructive and positive relationship with the IU and that a National Partnership Agreement with the IU exists in which both parties are committed to the success and growth” of DAC. DAC agreed to provide the IU, upon request, with a list of the names and addresses of employees at any facility covered by the agreement and to permit the IU to meet with employees in nonwork areas. The parties made a no-strike/no-lockout commitment, effective at a given facility when the IU requested an employee list for the facility and continuing until a first contract was negotiated or any contract-related dispute was resolved. DAC agreed to recognize and bargain with the IU upon proof of majority status, to be determined by a card check by a neutral third party. The LOA specified that DAC “may not recognize the Union as the exclusive representative of employees in the absence of a showing” of majority status. In addition, the LOA set forth certain principles that would inform future bargaining on particular topics, if and when the IU was recognized. For instance, regarding health care, article 4.2.1 of the 229230LOA stated that “the Union commits that in no event will bargaining between the parties erode current solutions and concepts in place or scheduled to be implemented on January 1, 2009, at DAC's operations which include premium sharing, deductibles, and out-of-pocket maximums.” Article 4.2.2 specified that the minimum duration of any collective-bargaining agreement between DAC and the IU would be four years, and that the parties would discuss contract durations of up to five years. Article 4.2.4 provided as follows:The parties agree that in labor agreements bargained pursuant to this Letter, the following conditions must be included for the facility to have a reasonable opportunity to succeed and grow:▪ Health care costs that reflect the competitive reality of the supplier industry and product(s) involved▪ Minimum classifications▪ Team-based approaches▪ The importance of attendance to productivity and quality▪ DAC's idea program (two ideas per person per month and 80 percent implementation)▪ Continuous improvement▪ Flexible compensation▪ Mandatory overtime when necessary (after qualified volunteers) to support the customer The LOA also specified steps that the parties would take if they were unable to reach a final agreement. Article 4.2 provided that, after five months, the parties would submit unresolved issues to a joint IU/DAC committee. If six months were to pass without a contract, the parties would submit unresolved issues to a neutral for interest arbitration, and the neutral would select either DAC's final offer or the IU's. In an August 13, 2008, press release, DAC announced that it and the IU had reached a “partnership agreement” that they expected would benefit both parties and would position DAC well in the competitive automotive parts market. The release stated that the LOA “supports the freedom our people have always enjoyed to choose whether or not they wish to be represented by a union.” In early December 2008, the IU requested a list of the employees working at the St. Joe's facility, pursuant to the LOA. Thereafter, the three DAC employees at the St. Joe's facility filed unfair labor practice charges. The three individuals, the Charging Parties, contend that the LOA included specific terms and conditions of employment and was negotiated at a time when the IU did not have majority status, and, therefore, the LOA provided unlawful support to the IU.Answer the below case study. Remember to answer the questions fully with significant detail. Also remember to support your answers with course concepts or outside sources.Questions- total like 450-500 word1. Is the LOA a legal document?2. Did the employer provide unlawful assistance to the union?3. Did the employer violate Section 8(a)(2) of the NLRA?
Solution: DAC and International Union Paper (100% Fresh and Original Work APA Format with References)