Archived News:

This article was originally published by the Wisconsin Chapter of the Associated Builders and Contractors in its February 2007 Merit Shop Talk newsletter.

Neutrality Agreements:  Bad Idea Justified by Faulty Assumptions

By Jim Pease

The “hot” new tactic being used by unions desperate to sign up new members is the “neutrality” agreement.  “Neutrality” agreements give a union special access to employees by providing the union with the names and addresses of employees and often includes giving the preferred union access to the employer’s premises to present their organizational appeal to employees.  “Neutrality” agreements generally require that the employer neither support nor resist the unionization effort.  If the union is able, one way or another, to get a majority of the employees to sign authorization cards, then the employer either is required to recognize the union as the representative of those employees or there is a simplified election procedure from which there is usually no appeal.  The “neutrality” agreement may also contain some of the provisions that will be in a Labor Agreement if the union does succeed in becoming the representative of the employees.

“Neutrality” agreements are undemocratic and use unreliable, easily manipulated means for obtaining employee input.  They prevent employees from getting the facts they need for an intelligent choice and discriminate against all unions other than the preferred union.  And, they subjugate employee freedom of choice to the unions’ belief that their way is the only way.

Undemocratic Process

The law doesn’t protect the right of the unions to win in its effort to become the representative of an employer’s employees.  Rather, the law protects the right of employees to choose.  And, the law has established a democratic process ending in a government conducted secret ballot election as the preferred method for determining how employees exercise their federally protected right of choice.

The National Labor Relations Act gives employees the opportunity to sift and winnow the information provided by the union and the employer and then, under laboratory conditions, exercise their right to choose whether they want to be represented by a union in a secret ballot election.  If an employer engages in improper conduct that affects the election, the election can be set aside and a second election held, or if the laboratory conditions were destroyed by the employer, the union could be certified as the employees’ representative even though the union lost the election.  This is the preferred method for determining whether employees want to be represented by a union.

Under “neutrality” agreements employees only get one side of the story.  It is as if only one political party could campaign in a government election and the other political party was required to maintain silence neither supporting nor opposing the other political party’s candidates.  The beneficiaries of an undemocratic process enjoy it, but is it good for those whose freedom of choice is protected by law and who don’t have a fair opportunity to hear from both sides?

Generally, all the union has to do is get a majority of the employees to sign authorization cards.  There is little, if any, regulation of the inducements, such as free food and beverage or promises of substantial increases in compensation and improved conditions of employment, or threats, such as exclusion from increases or benefits if the employee doesn’t sign up before the union makes its card submission to the employer, that may cause employees to sign the cards.

Keep Employees From Learning the Facts

“Neutrality” agreements are designed to prevent employees from protecting themselves from situations that would hurt them.  The reason unions like “neutrality” agreements is because, if employers aren’t gagged, they would provide information that might show employees that they would be better off without a union.  For example, it is not unusual for a union that has unionized a contractor working in a nonunion-dominated residential and light commercial market to insist that the contractor sign the union’s area commercial agreement.  That labor agreement will so significantly increase the contractor’s labor costs that the contractor will no longer be able to compete in its market in which it has been working.  The result is likely to be that the labor agreement will effectively put the employer out of business.  Be assured that the union won’t tell employees that.  But, it is the employees who will suffer the consequences.         

Another example:  Many employees of nonunion employers who perform government work have higher wages than unionized employees because their employers pay part of the certified fringe benefit package to them in the form of cash on their paycheck in addition to the certified wage rate.  Those employees would lose that extra payment if their employer signed a union agreement.  You can bet that the union won’t tell the employees that.

Preferential Treatment

“Neutrality” agreements give one union special preferential treatment over all other unions.  Put yourself in the shoes of another union that would like to represent the employees covered by another union’s “neutrality” agreement.  The preferred union is given confidential special information about employees that other unions don’t receive.  The preferred union has access to the employees that other unions don’t have.  The preferred union has a much simpler, and usually much less rigorous, procedure for achieving representative status than is faced by other unions.

The fact the employer has entered a “neutrality” agreement gives the preferred union the ability to tell employees that the employer has already agreed to sit down and talk with the preferred union.  In a sense, the employer already has recognized the preferred union.  In effect, the “neutrality” agreement gives the employer’s stamp of approval to the preferred union by showing that the employer is willing to deal with that union.

The preferred union can also promise employees that, if they sign up with the union, they automatically will get whatever the “neutrality” agreement provides for in a new labor agreement between the employer and the preferred union.

Conclusion

“Neutrality” agreements are bad for employees.  Unions treat all employers as if they are evil.  In fact, there are many good employers who have come up with programs, though different than the unions’ institutionalized program, that are actually better for those employees.  Unions treat their inflexible outdated programs as the best for employees.  In fact, those programs may not fit the needs of the employees and may actually do them harm.   Employees shouldn’t be prevented from hearing the truth about the disadvantages of unionization until it is too late.  Employee freedom of choice should be recognized and protected from “neutrality” agreements.

Go to In The News

This page is intended to provide general information about various legal issues and developments.  It is not intended to be a complete list of all recent legal developments.  This page does not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon in dealing with specific factual or legal matters.