Collective Bargaining Agreements

This case’s proceedings will be decided following the principles of business and
labour law subject to The National Labor Relations Act, of 1935. The National Labor
Relations Board is a statutory authority enacted under The National Labor Relations
Act,1935. The role of the Board is to handle unfair labour practices disputes. The
complainant files a charge against their employer using Form 501. The Board considers
the facts of the case and the circumstances relating to the parties involved to decide the
issue. For this instance, there are four parties involved: Delphi Golf, Union, the three
employees, and its employees.
Steps and Processes the Company Should Take for Defense
The first step is that a charge of unfair labor practice will be filed against the
Delphi Inc. board. An Agent from The National Labor Relations Board will be sent to the
company’s offices to gather more information and facts. By this time, the company
should already have a legal representative who is well versed with trade practice issues
and skills to handle such cases. The company will issue a position statement. This
statement will entail the company’s narrative and its understanding of the law. Its position
statement will respond to the statements published by the employees and the Union. It
will launch the company’s defense.
Defense and Employee’s Claim
The company can claim the defense of wrongful reasons. It can argue that there was a
need for immediate action needed and a reason to go against the provisions of the National Labor
Relations Act,1935. The company, at this point, can produce evidence to support their actions of
signing the said agreement with the trade union. The court will give directions for the collective

COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENTS 3
bargaining agreement to be implemented if the Union employee’s claims are valid. The security
clause excluding non-members will be excluded in this case (Rubenstein,1950,p.224).
Actions the Employer Should have Done Differently
The employer’s action constitutes actions that can cause injury to the employee in the
course of employment and affect their position as employees. The agreement provides that it is
compulsory to join the Union in a stipulated time frame of 31 days from the time of signing the
contract. The company should have granted ample time to the employees to join the Union, and
it should have requested their consent. The company should not have signed the collective
bargaining agreement after some employees showed their disinterest in joining the Union. The
agreement constituted illegal demands, and it was not in the best interest of the employees. It
failed to ensure good faith.
Actions the Union that Should Have Been Done Differently
The Union’s intention to increase its membership from the company members should
have been carried out better. The members should have been allowed more time and granted
power to join the Union after they consented voluntarily. To ensure good faith, the Union should
have sought to settle the matter without involving the National Labor Relations Board.
Who is Liable?
The company and the Union are both liable, jointly and separately. They are liable
because they entered into a collective bargaining agreement involving the closed shop union
security clause. The Union and the employer entered into an agreement that had an option to
discharge members who left the Union and only hire from union members. This discriminates
against employees who are not members of the Union.Section8 (a)3 of the National Labor
Relations Act,1935 provides for the retaliatory discharge. This involves unfair labor practices

COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENTS 4
that violate legal principles of consent in contract law. In conclusion, the collective bargaining
agreement does not support the views of the employees (Kruger & Tshoose, 2017, p. 294). It
weakens their voices; hence it is found to be null for these specific reasons.

COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENTS 5

References

Kruger, J., & Tshoose, C. I. (2017). The impact of the Labour Relations Act on minority trade
unions: A South African perspective. Potchefstroom Electronic Law
Journal/Potchefstroomse Elektroniese Regsblad, 16(4),
284. https://doi.org/10.17159/1727-3781/2013/v16i4a2416
Rubenstein, I., Nix, J., & Gary, W. (1950). Union-Security Provisions in Agreements, 1949-50.
Monthly Labor Review, 71(2), 224-228. Retrieved March 5, 2021, from
http://www.jstor.org/stable/41832116