About a month after the IBT launched its first rc petition, the IBT filed a second RC petition with ILRB on 6 October 2005, this time for the pace collaborators of the Heritage department. These employees were represented by the AFL-CIO (ATU Local 241) under a collective agreement expiring on December 31, 2005. The ILRB set an election for 24 February 2006, once again ignoring the non-raid agreement. The so-called “non-raid” agreement is the only basis on which the AFL-CIO relies when it requests that we call the two elections scheduled by the ILRB. This agreement is a bit problematic and could be considered an “emperor without clothes”. In particular, the AFL-CIO asserts that “a private non-raiding agreement between trade unions, in which they voluntarily agree not to represent certain workers, no longer violates the right of workers to choose bargaining representatives than a decision [sic] of a given union, with the exception of such a non-raiding agreement, not to represent such workers or to refuse the interest of a bargaining unit. See Pls.` Mem. Supp. Word.
Tro at 9-10. The ILA`s local representation on federal labour law gives the board the last – and only – who says who should represent workers. He also said that a “contract bar” from the NLRB, which aims to ban descents, covers pacts from three years. The UFCW-WWL contract expired for four years. The AFL-CIO will do everything in its power to put an end to these activities that threaten the economic existence of our members. The Federation will review its raid policies, including the treatment of units previously attacked by an AFL-CIO member, but which are now represented by an independent union after a sister union has joined a sister company, and will consider appropriate corrective measures, including possible constitutional amendments, to address this issue. The longer-term impact, if the Executive Director agrees with Marshall, could be to end Article XX and make the AFL-CIO unions open to the descents of their counterparts. Article XX does not cover the relationship between AFL-CIO unions and trade unions in Change To Win.
In United Textile Workers, our commutation decided that not only a collective agreement, but a “non-raid” agreement between two unions, which is specifically intended for mandatory conciliation, could be imposed by the federal court under Section 301 of the LMRA, and concluded: Thus, we come to the conclusion that the tension between these two policies must be resolved on an ad hoc basis. , not by a global refusal to use our just powers to enforce non-raid agreements. Let`s look at the “No Raid” agreement that awaits us. First, it was launched 27 years ago to launch the hoped-for merger of AFL-CIO and IBT. Second, it could be argued (like the IBT) that it has been replaced by the merger agreement between the two unions and that it no longer has any strength or effect.