Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Law Commons

Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Labor and Employment Law

University of Michigan Law School

Michigan Law Review

1955

Bargaining

Articles 1 - 2 of 2

Full-Text Articles in Law

Labor Law - Certified Union's Loss Of Majority Status During Certification Year And Without Fault Of Employer As Justification For Refusal To Bargain, Eugene Alkema S.Ed. Nov 1955

Labor Law - Certified Union's Loss Of Majority Status During Certification Year And Without Fault Of Employer As Justification For Refusal To Bargain, Eugene Alkema S.Ed.

Michigan Law Review

The "one year certification rule" was originated in the early years of the National Labor Relations Board and has been consistently applied by it. Essentially it provides that after certification an employer is required to bargain with the certified union for a reasonable time, which is usually one year in the absence of "unusual circumstances." The certified union is conclusively presumed to represent a majority of employees in the unit for that period, the presumption afterward becoming rebuttable. This system of successive conclusive and rebuttable presumptions represents a compromise between the competing policies of giving a union time to establish …


Labor Law - Collective Bargaining - Contract Ratification And Strike Authorization Clauses As Statutory Proposals, Arne Hovdesoen S.Ed. Nov 1955

Labor Law - Collective Bargaining - Contract Ratification And Strike Authorization Clauses As Statutory Proposals, Arne Hovdesoen S.Ed.

Michigan Law Review

After continued employer demands to discuss contract ratification and strike authorization clauses, the union discontinued contract negotiations on the ground that such proposals constituted interference with its internal affairs and as such were not within the scope of mandatory collective bargaining as defined by sections 8 (d) and 9 (a) of the amended National Labor Relations Act. The National Labor Relations Board found the union's action to be the result of the employer's refusal to bargain in compliance with section 8 (d) and issued an appropriate order directing the company to cease and desist from insisting upon these proposals to …