Ion Construction v. District Council of Painters No. 16

Good Law
593 F. Supp. 233·121 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 3099·1984 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24043
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaAugust 28, 1984C-83-5279California3,065 words

Opinion

Opinion

Aguilar, J.

ORDER

The general rule in labor-management relations is that a union and an employer may not enter into an agreement until a majority of the employees in a unit have selected the union as their exclusive bargaining agent. Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA” or the “Act”), 29 U.S.C. § 157 , grants employees the right to choose their representative for the purposes of collective bargaining. Section 9(a) of the Act provides that the bargaining representative for the employees in a unit must be the representative “designated or selected for the purposes of collective bargaining by the majority of the employees in a unit appropriate for such purposes.” 29 U.S.C. § 159 (a).

Based on the guarantees contained in sections 7 and 9(a), “[t]he [Supreme] Court has held that both the union and the employer commit unfair labor practices when they sign a collective bargaining agreement recognizing the union as the exclusive bargaining agent when in fact only a minority of the employees have authorized the union to represent their interests.” NLRB v. Iron Workers (“Higdon”), 434 U.S. 335, 344 , 98 S.Ct. 651, 657 , 54 L.Ed.2d 586 (1978). Further, it is an unfair labor practice…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.