Originally Posted by
Popeye0537
He's not lying.....
You're on probation and it's in the Unions interest to follow the CBA and not allow the company to have full autonomy on hotels and who gets them. If allowed it sets a future precedent in negotiations.
Oh, he isn’t LYING, what he’s doing is making a statement against interest so that in a civil suit by new hires as a group their getting damages from the union is a slam-dunk.Same for complaining to the NLRB that your union has failed in its obligation to treat you fairly.
THE DUTY OF FAIR REPRESENTATION
I. The Origin of the Duty of Fair Representation
A. Steele v. Louisville & Nashville R.R., 323 U.S. 192, 15 LRRM 708 (1944).
The Supreme Court, in a case involving the Railway Labor Act, held that the Act implicitly expresses the aim of Congress to impose on the exclusive representative the duty to exercise fairly the power conferred upon it on behalf of all those for whom it acts, without hostile discrimination against them. See also, Tunstall v. Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen, 323 U.S. 210, 15 LRRM 715 (1944).
B. Ford Motor Co. v. Huffman, 345 U.S. 330,31 LRRM 2548 (1952).
The Supreme Court applied the fair representation analysis developed initially under the RLA to a case arising under the National Labor Relations Act. This case, like the previous RLA cases, dealt with a Union’s power to negotiate a contract. See also, Syres v. Oil Workers Int’l Union, 350 U.S. 892, 37 LRRM 2068 (1955).
C. Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 41 LRRM 2089 (1957).
The Supreme Court, in a case involving a claim under the RLA against a Union for alleged racial discrimination in the application of a nondiscriminatory contract, held that the duty set out in Steele to represent all fairly did not come to an abrupt end with the making of the contract between the Union and the Employer. The Court held that the Union could no more unfairly discriminate in carrying out its grievance functions than it could in negotiating a contract. See also, Humphrey v. Moore, 375 U.S. 335, 55 LRRM 2031 (1964).
II. General Standards for Breach of the Duty of Fair Representation
A. Humphrey v. Moore, 375 U.S. 335, 55 LRRM 2031 (1964).
The exclusive agent’s statutory authority to represent all members of a designated unit includes a statutory obligation to serve the interests of all members without hostility or discrimination toward any, to exercise its discretion with complete good faith and honesty, and to avoid arbitrary conduct.
B. Vaca v. Sipes, 386 U.S. 171,190, 64 LRRM 2369, 2376 (1967).
“A breach of the statutory duty of fair representation occurs only when a Union’s conduct toward a member of the collective bargaining unit is arbitrary, discriminatory, or in bad faith.”
C. United Steelworkers of America v. Rawson, 495 U.S. 362,134 LRRM 2153 (1990)