Unfair Labor Practice Law Suit

Unfair Labor Practices Law Suit
Student’s Name
Institution

Labor union plays a significant role in the protection of individual employee from the management power that is sometimes formidable. In both the negotiation and implementation of collective bargain agreement the organization power in representing the interest of the employees counterbalances the overwhelming power of the employer. Labor union represents variety of employees. This implies that they have diverse interest. Yet, some of the employees feel inevitably dissatisfied with the union negotiation on collective bargain agreement. Today, within the current legal framework the administration of collective bargain guarantee greater protection in regards to the individual employee. By diminishing the control of the union in terms of how employees’ access grievances machinery without necessarily ruining the vitality of the process of collective bargain.
Fair representation duty is a doctrine developed in line with judicially and it is designed with intentions of protecting an individual employee from the union bad faith conduct. The employees must prove union bad faith conduct before the court for the court to consider the merits of their claims otherwise, relief might be difficult to secure (Fossum, 2014). Even though fair representation duty is a determinant of when an individual employee can sue in court. The content of the actual duty must be derived from the provisions within the collective bargain agreement rather not from the intentions of the union.

The agreement substantive provisions offer objective limit to the discretion of the union in dropping or settling grievances. On the other hand, it can also act as a constraint on the ability of the employer to depend on the good faith conduct of the union as a defense. Expanding fair representation duty will not afford the employees much protection as compared to when they would achieve from absolute right to process their grievances. However, it would give them greater assurance as compared to what exists presently this means the expectations made of a written agreement cannot be nulled at will.
The system of the collective bargain is primarily based on interest subordination of individual employee as well as the collective interest of all members. From the case, the majority of the Delphi Golf, Inc. employees who are covered by the agreement had not chosen the union to be their representative. Therefore, the company acted against the will of the vast majority in engaging in such agreement with the union and thus violated the rights of its employees. The employer should not have entered into the agreement since most of the workers were not satisfied with the union as their representative. It could have worked much better if only a few employees were against the union. Allowing workers to choose their representative union would have provided the workers with an opportunity to negotiate terms that represent their needs rather than forcing them into a contract of one-size-fits-all. By instructing Delphi Golf, Inc. not to employ the three servers the union clearly demonstrated that it was presenting its institutional interest. In such a case the union intentions are to increase membership. On the other hand, the union should not have instructed the employer, not to employ the three. Since the collective bargain agreement contains the “union security” clause the union would have requested the company to hire the three employees under a condition that, in event the employees decline join the union they will have to be paying union dues. In return, the union must lower the compensation due to forced dues.
Reference
Fossum, J. A. (2014). Labor relations. Mcgraw Hill Higher Educat.