No coin nor oath required. For personal study only.
the union prevailed, the employer might file legal objections to the union's conduct. This could lead to a delay in the start of bargaining. The employer stated it could not predict when bargaining would begin and, once it did commence, no one could say how long, if ever, it would take to reach agreement on contract terms. It also indicated that implementation of benefit changes would be subjected to negotiations that might be prolonged. These predictions of delay violated the act. In another case (Moody Chip Corp., 243 NLRB 2541, the Board found that repeated references to lengthy negotiations were equal in force to a direct threat and therefore were a violation.
As these cases indicate, the Board has a rigid view on statements implying delay in improvements resulting from the collective bargaining process, particularly when employers hint that improvements in terms and conditions of employment might swiftly follow a union's rejection, but be delayed, or never come to pass, if the union is voted in.
Given the potential for trouble about statements predicting delays in getting a contract if a union were elected, management should review any communications on this topic with counsel before they are published.
๐ SIMILAR VOLUMES