Successorship and Bargaining Obligations in Labor Relations: The Fall River Case Study
This analysis explores the bargaining obligations incurred by successors under labor law, focusing on the Fall River case. It examines the "rebuttable presumption" of union majority status and the "substantial continuity" doctrine. Key factors include the preservation of business operations, workforce conditions, and customer relationships. The text contrasts employee and employer perspectives on continuity and the implications of the absence of a business relationship between predecessors and successors. Ultimately, it assesses the legitimacy of union claims amid gaps in workforce continuity.
Successorship and Bargaining Obligations in Labor Relations: The Fall River Case Study
E N D
Presentation Transcript
Fall River • Bargaining obligation incurred by successor when there is a “rebuttable presumption” of union majority status • Successorship determined by “substantial continuity” doctrine • same business, jobs, working conditions, production process, products, customers • totality of circumstances • ee perspective • Bargaining obligation incurred if predecessor’s ees a majority of “substantial and representative complement” of successor’s ees
Fall River (cont.) • accepts “continuing bargaining demand” rule • once union makes a bargaining demand, it is maintained, even if it is initially made before “substantial and representative complement” hired
Dissent • No successorship; no “substantial continuity” • Employer Perspective • Break in continuity • 6 months between Sterlingwale demise and Fall River establishment • 9 months between Sterlingwale demise and Fall River production startup • No business relationship between Sterlingwale and Fall River • Attraction of customers on its own and not due to Sterlingwale • Employee Perspective • Sterlingwale ees expected no further empl. with co. • Expiration of CBA • Fall River advertised for new workers • No continuity of workforce to presume maj. status
