1. Certification on the Basis of Signed Authorizations
Provides for certification of a union as the bargaining representative if the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) finds that a majority of employees in a appropriate unit has signed authorizations designating the union as its bargaining representative. Requires the NLRB to develop model authorization language and procedures for establishing the authenticity of signed authorizations.
2. First Contract Mediation and Arbitration
Provides that if an employer and a union are engaged in bargaining for there first contract and are unable to reach a agreement within 90 days, either party may refer the dispute to the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service (FMCS) for mediation. If the FMCS has been unable to bring the parties to agreement after 30 days of mediation, the dispute will be referred to arbitration and the results of the arbitration shall be binding on the parties for two years. Time limits may be extended by mutual agreement of the parties.
3. Stronger Penalties for Violations While Employees Are Attempting to Organize or Obtain a First Contract
Makes the following new provisions applicable to violations of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) committed by employers against employees during any period while employees are attempting to organize a union or negotiate a first contract with the employer:
a. Mandatory Applications for Injunctions: Provides that just as the NLRB is required to seek a federal court injunction against a union whenever there is reasonable cause to believe that the union has violated the secondary boycott prohibitions in the NLRA, the NLRB must seek a federal court injunction against an employer whenever there is reasonable cause to believe that the employer has discharged or discriminated against employees, threatened to discharged or discriminate against employees or engaged in conduct that significantly interferes with employee rights during an organizing or first contract drive. Authorizes the courts to grant temporary restraining orders or other appropriate injunctive relief.
b. Treble Back Pay: Increases the amount an employer is required to pay when an employee is discharged or discriminated against during an organizing campaign or first contract drive to three time back pay.
c. Civil Penalties: Provides for civil fines of up to $20,000 per violation against employers found to have willfully or repeatedly violated employees rights during an organizing campaign or first contract drive.
Question and Answers about Card Check
Q: How do card-check procedures work under current law?
A:Under current law, employers can recognize a union if a majority of employees demonstrates that they wish to be representative by a union--usually by signing forms designating the union as their collective bargaining representative. It is illegal for employers to recognize a union that does not have majority support. On the other hand employers are under no obligation to recognize a union even if 100 percent of employees have signed such authorization forms. For this reason, employees in many workplaces ask management to enter into so-called "card-check" agreements, in which management agrees to voluntarily recognize the union if a majority of employees sign authorization forms or cards. Employers may enter into these agreements to maintain good relations with their employees, to maintain good relations with unions at their other work sites or to maintain a favorable public image. Respected community leaders or professional arbitrators typically are designated as neutral third parties to monitor the agreement and to verify that authorization forms have been signed by a true majority.
Q: How do card-check procedures work under the Employee Free Choice Act, and how are they different than current law?
A: Under the Employee Free Choice Act, when a majority of employees sign union authorization forms, they can file a petition with the NLRB, and the NLRB must investigate the petition. If the NLRB determines that authorization forms have been signed by a majority of employees, the board must certify the union as the employees, collective bargaining representative. The principal difference with current law is that the union must be certified when authorization forms have been signed by a majority of employees, whereas under current law the employer can refuse to recognize the union and insist instead on an NLRB election. Another difference is that the NLRB, rather than another neutral third party, must directly determine whether a majority of employees have designate the union as their collective bargaining representative.
Q: What do union authorization forms cards actually say?
A: Union authorization forms typically contain language designating a particular union to represent the employee in collective bargaining negotiations on wages, hours and working conditions. Authorization forms also typically request other necessary information, such as name, address, and Social Security number, and they must be signed and dated. The Employee Free Choice Act directs the NLRB to develop model language for unions authorizations forms, which will ensure that the authorization forms accurately advises employees of the consequences of signing the card.
Q: Do card-check procedures and NLRB elections require the same measure of majority support?
A: No card-check procedures--under current law as well as the Employee Free Choice Act--require a higher standard of majority support. Under card-check procedures, a majority of all employees in the bargaining unit must support union representation, and employees who cannot be identified or located are presumed not to support union representations. In NLRB election only a majority of those employees who actually vote is required.
Q: Why aren't secret ballot elections supervised by the NLRB more democratic than card-check procedures?
A: NLRB elections actually are less democratic than card-check procedures. Card-check procedures are better at ensuring employee free choice by allowing employees to express their true wishes free from employer coercion. Card-check procedures avoid the anti-democratic and inherently coercive anti-union campaigns that are typical of the NLRB elections process.
Q: How do card-check procedures protect employees against pressure and coercion by union organizers?
A: It is illegal for anyone to coerce employees to sign a union authorization form. There is no evidence that existing remedies are insufficient to deter or remedy such coercion. Nor has pro-union coercion proved to be a problem in the Canadian provinces where card-check procedures similar to those of the Employee Free Choice Act have been implemented. It would be ludicrous to compare peer pressure from fellow employees with the inherently coercive power that management exercises over the livelihood of employees.
Q: How can the authenticity of union authorization forms be guaranteed?
A: There is no evidence that falsification of authorization forms is a problem in either the United States or in Canada. Procedures commonly used to verify authorization forms include comparison of signatures on the form to signatures from the employer's payroll records. Signed authorizations are widely recognized method of choosing legal representatives. The Employee Free Choice Act direct the NLRB to develop procedures to establish the authenticity of signed authorization forms.
Q: Why is there an effort to enact card-check legislating no, when traditional NLRB elections have worked for almost 70 years?
A: Actually, the NLRB election process is more recent than card-check procedures and has not been the means by which most collective bargaining relationships have been established in the United States, either before or after enactment of the National Labor Relations Act. The Employee Free Choice Act is necessary today because employers have become increasingly bold in violating employee's rights and violating the law under the NLRB election process. The NLRB process was developed at a time when employer hostility to collective bargaining was much less vehement. In the 1950's and 1960's employers did not routinely engage in the massive legal and illegal violations of employee rights that is commonplace today.