Successor Collective Bargaining Agreement

Similarly, the clear and unequivocal waiver standard used to determine whether an employer`s unilateral actions are consistent with contract language, bargaining history and past practices is not applicable with respect to a successor to Burns, since, by definition, the union and successor have no history of negotiation or past practices. Accordingly, the Committee found that the conditions of employment of a successor employer, implemented unilaterally, cannot be considered a waiver of a trade union`s right to negotiate compulsory bargaining matters. In a dispute between Tramont Manufacturing, LLC (the “Employer”) and United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America, Local 1103 (the “Union”), the employer assumed responsibility for the production of diesel engines and parts by a predecessor employer. As successor, the employer was not bound by the provisions of the collective agreement between the Union and the previous employer by NLRB v. Burns International. Since the employer succeeded Burns, he was free to unilaterally introduce new terms and conditions of employment, which he did in the form of a personnel manual containing a provision defining the employer`s power to unilaterally carry out dismissals and the procedure. In GVS Properties, LLC required a New York settlement that a new owner and employer must keep employees of its predecessor`s construction technique for 90 days after closing. The Board of Directors found that GVS was a successor employer because it was making a “deliberate decision” to purchase and manage the buildings, knowing that it had to retain employees for 90 days after closing. As a successor, the Board of Directors found that GVS had a duty to recognize and negotiate with the union. The standard set by the BRBA in this case is similar to the “contractual coverage” standard applicable in cases where the conditions have been set out in a collective agreement. In this regard, however, the successor has the possibility of unilaterally setting the first conditions.

This gives the successor employer the advantage of using a language of its choice – a language that can “reasonably encompass” the needs expected in order to make unilateral business decisions free from the obligation to negotiate those decisions. . . .