Distinctions Without Differences: Effects Bargaining In Light of First National Maintenance

The Supreme Court recently held that an employer has no duty to bargain over its economically-motivated decision to close a part of its operations. The Court, however, reafffirmed that mitigation of the effects of a partial closure upon a jeopardized workforce is a mandatory subject of collective ba...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Industrial relations law journal 1983-01, Vol.5 (3), p.402-425
Main Author: Kohler, Thomas C.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Bargaining unit
Business structures
Collective bargaining
Economic motivation
Employee relations
Employees
Employment
FORUM
Good faith bargaining
Management decisions
Motors
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:The Supreme Court recently held that an employer has no duty to bargain over its economically-motivated decision to close a part of its operations. The Court, however, reafffirmed that mitigation of the effects of a partial closure upon a jeopardized workforce is a mandatory subject of collective bargaining. At best, decision bargaining merely entails employer consideration of union-suggested alternatives to partial termination before making a final decision to close. As the duty to effects bargain is broad in scope and attaches before an employer decides irrevocably to terminate a part of its operations, the Court's exclusion of decision bargaining from the ambit of mandatory bargaining will have a minimal impact upon an employee representative's ability to bargain in effect about a partial closure decision.
ISSN:0145-188X
2378-1874