8(F) Agreement

„In a statement issued today in Loshaw Thermal Technology, LLC, 05-CA-158650, the National Labor Relations Board requests the filing of briefs on whether it should re-examine the holding company of Staunton Fuel & Material, 335 NLRB 717 (2001). According to Staunton Fuel, this presumption of 8(f) can be overcome and a section 9(a) report can be established by the contractual language alone, particularly if the language of the parties` collective agreement clearly indicates that the union has applied for and obtained recognition as the majority or 9(a) representative of the people obsessed with unity, on the basis of the fact that the union has shown or proposed, to show evidence of its majority support. The council is asking for briefings on whether staunton Fuel should be respected, modified or minority. In addition, the Commission invites information on Casale Industries, 311 NLRB 951 (1993), which regulates the limitation period for challenging the extension of the recognition of Section 9(a) by an employer in the construction industry. Under Casale Industries and its descendants, the status 9 (a) of a union cannot be challenged more than six months after the union is recognized by the employer as representative 9 (a) of the unit leaders. This limitation period applies both where the recognition referred to in point 9(a) is alleged as an unfair labour practice and where the invalidity of the recognition as a defence is invoked against a charge of refusal to trial. „Most private sector collective agreements are governed by Section 9(a) of the National Labor Relations Act, and this section generally requires a majority of workers in the bargaining unit to represent them from a union. In the construction sector, it`s different. In this sector, employment contracts are considered to fall under section 8 (f) of the Act, which does not require such majority support. In response to a decision of the U.S.

Court of Appeals for the D.C Circuit, General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board, recently issued a memorandum that provides the regional offices of the LNRB with guidelines for the review of cases of whether or not pre-contractual agreements in the construction industry are converted into collective agreements under Section 9(a) of the National Labor Relations Act (the „Act“). Both the Administrative Judge and the National Labor Relations Board found that the agreement had been converted into an agreement under Section 9(a). On appeal, however, the DC circuit turned around. In addition to clarifying the test of turning an 8(f) agreement into a 9(a) agreement, the court also defended a very favorable view of workers to the National Labor Relations Act. As in many areas of federal labour law, employers in the construction industry have different rules. A big difference is in the way employers are unionized. Generally, under Section 9(a) of the National Labor Relations Act, a union becomes the head of collective bargaining for employees only when a majority of workers support union representation. In other words, workers chose to be represented by a particular union. However, according to Section 8(f) of the NLRA, employers in the construction industry may choose to become unionized without the majority of workers supporting. In fact, employers in the construction industry do not need to employ at all to sign an „8(f)“ agreement.

As a result, these agreements became known as pre-concluded contracts. The court began its opinion by ruling that the NRA was supposed to „allow workers to freely choose their own representatives.“ (I have trouble writing it because I lost a case of appeal in the third circle concerning an 8(f) agreement in which I insisted on this point.) The Court held that Section 8(f) did not change the situation simply because it allows the employer to choose whether its employees are unionized or not. . . .