A union, a casino and the law

At a time when unions are struggling to organize workers in the private sector, the Supreme Court is being asked to make unionization more difficult even when an employer agrees not to resist it. The court should reject the notion that such "neutrality" agreements violate the law.

On Wednesday, the court will be asked to allow a Florida casino to renege on an agreement it made with the Unite Here union under which management promised to remain neutral during the organizing process and assist the union by providing easy access to employees. The agreement also allowed the union to win the right to represent workers by collecting signatures — the so-called card check system — rather than by a secret ballot. Finally, the agreement provided for binding arbitration of disputes.

The agreement was reached in anticipation of a ballot initiative to legalize casino gambling in Miami-Dade and Broward counties. But after the measure was approved, the casino declined to comply with the agreement, citing legal concerns. Later, a casino company employee filed a lawsuit claiming that the deal violated a provision of federal law that says employers may not "pay, lend or deliver … any money or other tangible thing of value" to a union. The U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals agreed, in a decision that conflicts with rulings by two other appeals courts.

Lawyers for the union argue persuasively that a company's agreement to remain neutral during an organizing drive is not a "payment" or "delivery" or "thing of value." And they note that the Supreme Court itself has said that the provision was motivated by a concern in Congress that companies might try to co-opt union leaders by bribing them. The union also notes that courts have enforced agreements such as the one in this case for decades.

Companies aren't required to endorse the unionization of their workplaces, and this page has opposed legislation that would do away with secret ballots in organization elections. The government's interest isn't to promote unionization at all costs but to ensure that workers can make an uncoerced decision about whether to be represented by a bargaining unit.

But if a company decides that it's in its interests to remain neutral in an organization drive — perhaps because it believes unionization is inevitable — it shouldn't be prevented from doing so. The Supreme Court should overturn the 11th Circuit's far-fetched reading of federal labor law.

Copyright © 2015, RedEye
Related Content
  • Retailers are waging a war on Thanksgiving
    Retailers are waging a war on Thanksgiving

    There has been a lot of talk over the years about whether there's a war on Christmas. That's debatable. But there is definitely a pernicious and obvious war on another holiday: Thanksgiving. Every year, retailers greedily eat up more of the holiday and come a little closer to turning...

  • Why these new manufacturing jobs won't save the American middle class

    One of the more shortsighted and self-destructive policies local governments embrace is the pursuit, via tax breaks and other enticements, of manufacturing plants. The idea is that if a municipality gets a company to relocate a factory within its borders, then riches will flow from the added...

  • Nepotism is no way to staff a fire department
    Nepotism is no way to staff a fire department

    It's a fact of life: Many kids want to be firefighters when they grow up. Some hold fast to that desire into their early adult years, some percentage of those actually follow through by applying and taking the test, and a fortunate few actually get hired into fire departments. And because...

  • Care about family values? Don't go shopping on Thanksgiving Day
    Care about family values? Don't go shopping on Thanksgiving Day

    Thanksgiving, more than any other holiday, revolves around the communal family meal. With Americans’ increasingly busy schedules, it is a rare occasion to slow down and be with your nearest and dearest. But if some retailers have it their way, Thanksgiving will soon be more about shopping...

  • Would it hurt City Hall to look into rise in worker injury claims?
    Would it hurt City Hall to look into rise in worker injury claims?

    The cost of paying salaries to Los Angeles civilian workers who are temporarily disabled because they have been hurt on the job has gone up 50% over five years, reaching $18 million last year. Employees are claiming more injuries and taking longer injury leaves. City officials don't know why...

  • No winners in this MTA train wreck
    No winners in this MTA train wreck

    It's hard to find winners in the meltdown that occurred last week at the Metropolitan Transportation Authority. A Japanese rail car manufacturing company trying to build a plant in Palmdale announced it was tired of fighting a union-supported environmental challenge and instead would build...

Comments
Loading