representation of the union

Legal Aid at Work

Labor Unions: Duty of Fair Representation

I feel like my union has treated me unfairly. what are my rights.

A union owes a duty of fair representation to all of the workers it represents. This duty requires that the union act fairly, impartially, and without ill will or discrimination when pursuing a worker’s grievance or when negotiating a new contract with the employer. The union is required to take reasonable steps to investigate a grievance and must represent members in more than a dismissive manner. It is illegal for a union to treat you in ways that are:

• arbitrary (e.g., a union refuses to pursue your grievance without reason);
• discriminatory (e.g., a union refuses to pursue the grievances of all of its non-white workers);
• or in bad faith (e.g., a union official fails to respond to your complaint just because he/she doesn’t like you).

If you feel that the union has treated you in one of these three ways and has breached its duty of fair representation, you may bring legal action against it.

However, the duty of fair representation does not require the union to pursue all grievances until the final possible stage of the grievance procedure or to take all the steps that the member might want it to. The duty of fair representation does not even require that the union do a particularly good job at representing grievances. Unions are only prohibited from acting in arbitrary or discriminatory ways, or in bad faith.

What if there is a union where I work, but I have chosen not to be a member. If I have a grievance, does the union have to represent me?

Yes. Legally, the union has the same obligation to represent you fairly as it does to represent union members. You can ask the union to file a grievance if you are fired or disciplined, even if you are not a member.

What should I do if my union refuses to file a grievance for me?

Sometimes a union shop steward or other representative may refuse to file a grievance. If this happens, you can ask a union officer or someone else who holds a position of power in the union to file a grievance for you.

Unions do not have to represent all employees in all grievances. But the union should agree at least to investigate your complaint and, depending on how strong the union representative feels your case is, decide whether to file a grievance and how far it will go in representing you in the grievance procedure. If you have been fired and the union has not yet decided whether to file a grievance, you should consider putting your grievance request in writing, especially before the grievance deadline expires.

If you feel that the union is not responding to your requests, you may be able to make suggestions to them about how to handle your claim. For instance, you can ask them to interview specific witnesses, request certain documents from the employer, and investigate the experiences of coworkers that are similar to yours. Being proactive about your case in these ways may encourage the union to take your claim more seriously.

My union refused to pursue my grievance after I lost my hearing, but I want to go to arbitration. Can I sue the union for refusing to go further with my case?

Probably not. Unions have a lot of leeway in choosing which grievances they will handle. If the union honestly believes that your case is not strong enough to continue, it may legally stop representing you. However, if you feel the union stopped pursuing your case just because they didn’t like you, or because of your race, gender, or other discriminatory reason, the union may have breached its duty of fair representation and you may have a claim.

The union agreed to pursue my grievance, but I am not satisfied with result they got for me. Can I sue the union if it has done a bad job?

Again, probably not. The law does not require that the union be smart about the resolution of grievances. As long as they were reasonably thorough and careful, they will not have breached their duty to fairly represent you—even if the result is worse than the situation that caused you to file a grievance in the first place. On the other hand, if you believe the union intentionally mismanaged your grievance because they didn’t like you or because of your race, gender, or other discriminatory reason, the union may have breached its duty of fair representation and you may have a claim.

If I think the union did not represent me fairly, how do I file a claim?

You should first pursue all other internal procedures. For example, you may be required to appeal your local union’s decision not to pursue a grievance to arbitration with your union’s international office. If you are still not able to get complete relief or your grievance reinstated, you can file a claim with the nearest office of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) or in federal district court. (Government employees have different requirements, e.g. state and local government employees file claims with the California Public Employees Relations Board (or “PERB”) Filing with the NLRB, unlike filing in court, is free and you do not need a lawyer.

Either way, you have 6 months from the day that you exhausted all other internal grievance procedures to file your claim. Your claim will be against the union for breaching its duty of fair representation. However, you can also bring a claim against your employer for your original grievance if the reason you did not get a satisfactory remedy was because of the union’s failure to fairly represent you. In the claim against the employer, you must first prove that your union failed to fairly represent you, regardless of whether you are also pursuing a claim against the union.

What am I entitled to if I win my claim with the NLRB or the court?

If your claim is successful, you may get your old job back and back pay for the wages you lost (if you were terminated). You will not get money for any “pain and suffering,” distress, or inconvenience that the situation has caused you.

• [email protected]

All About Unions

Unions are essential to protect worker rights. This page provides information on unions, the laws that protect them, and your rights related to union representation.

Listen to our Unions Part I: Starbucks Unions Wins + Collective Bargaining Podcast   and Unions Part II: The Amazon Union Leaders Who Made History for a real life examples of the challenges and opportunities establishing a union.

A labor union is an organization of workers joined to protect their common interests and improve their working conditions. It serves as an intermediary between the employer and the employees. The main purpose is to give workers power to negotiate more favorable working conditions through collective bargaining. Some of the largest and/or most prominent unions in the U.S. include the  United Auto Workers ,  Service Employees International Union ,  International Brotherhood of Teamsters , American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, and the  United Steelworkers . The  AFL-CIO  ( member list ) and  Change to Win  ( member list ) are federations, large umbrella organizations of unions which have banded together to share resources and promote common political and organizing goals.

The Pros of Union Membership  Unions provide worker protections.  In most U.S. states, non-union workers are at-will employees, which means that employers can fire employees for virtually any reason. However, there are limitations in place such as discrimination and whistleblowing. See  workplacefairness.org  for more information on discrimination and whistleblowing. To fire union members, there must be just cause and the decision must go through arbitration or a grievance procedure. 

Unions promote higher wages and better benefits.  Through collective bargaining, employees can negotiate from a position of strength with employers over wages, benefits, workplace health and safety, job training, and other work-related issues. Unions also serve an important role making sure that management acts fairly and treats its employees with respect. Unionized workers (workers covered by a union contract) earn on average 11.2% more in wages than their nonunionized peers (workers in the same industry and occupation with similar education and experience). 

Black and Hispanic workers get a larger boost from unionization. Black workers represented by a union are paid 13.7% more than their nonunionized peers. Hispanic workers represented by unions are paid 20.1% more than their nonunionized peers. See the  Economic Policy Institute  website for more information.

Unions drive change . Before unions, weekends and provisions for workers did not really exist. Even though the U.S. workforce has not been 100% unionized, unions do impact trends that benefit all workers. Other examples include the minimum wage, Occupational Safety and Health guidelines, and overtime rules. 

Political organizing is easier.  Unions can amplify and advance political causes the working class supports. This doesn’t always mean unionized workers support the political agenda of their union, but unions do help keep candidates focused on issues that matter to the workers.   The Cons of Union Membership Unions require dues and fees that some workers don’t want to pay.  Workplaces with unions fall into two categories:  open and closed . Open shops don’t require employees to pay dues or fees to the union. In a closed shop, employees must be union members to apply for a job. Some will allow candidates to apply for the job as a non-unionized candidate, but if the candidate is hired, the non-member must become a member. Some allow employees to work as non-members, but those workers are required to pay agency fees, which contribute to the work the union is doing. 

Labor unions discourage individuality.  Workers are bound by the decisions of the union even if they disagree with the decision.

Unions make it harder to promote and terminate workers.  Unions focus on the seniority of the worker. This can impact advancement opportunities for high performing employees who have less tenure with the organization.

Unions can increase costs.  Hiring unionized workers can be more expensive than hiring non-unionized workers if there is a significant difference in wage levels. The grievance process can also increase costs for an employer.

To form a union, a group of workers must either:

• have the employer voluntarily recognize them as a union;
• or have a majority of workers in a  bargaining unit  vote for union representation.

In either case, the  National Labor Relations Board  (NLRB) must then certify the newly formed union.

Once the union is certified, the employer is legally required to bargain in good faith with the union. The employer must come to the bargaining table with an open mind and a sincere desire to discuss the issues. Both parties must try to reach a settlement through negotiations, and when the agreement is reached, they must sign a written contract, known as a  collective bargaining agreement  (CBA).

According to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), a bargaining unit is a group of two or more employees who share a community of interest and may reasonably be grouped together for purposes of collective bargaining. Certain individuals are excluded from bargaining units because they are not considered “employees.” This includes agricultural laborers, independent contractors, supervisors, and persons in managerial positions, from the meaning of “employees.” In addition, the NLRB excludes employees who act in a confidential capacity to an employer’s labor relations officials from bargaining units. See the  NLRB website  for more information.

A collective bargaining agreement (sometimes called a CBA) is an agreement negotiated between a labor union and an employer that sets forth the terms of employment for the employees who are members of that labor union. A CBA may include provisions regarding wages, vacation time, working hours, working conditions, and health insurance benefits. Once a collective bargaining agreement is in place:

• Management cannot reduce wages or change working conditions without first negotiating with the employees, through their union representatives. Employees are entitled to vote on changes made to their contract.
• Your contract is for a set period of time and cannot be changed at will by a notice or announcement.
• There will be no favoritism or change of policy to suit the whim of management.
• Your union enforces your contract to make sure the employer abides by the rules.
• Your union enforces your contract through a grievance procedure, in arbitration

For example, unions deal with practices regarding discipline and making sure proper procedures are in place so that employees are treated fairly. Most union members cannot be terminated or disciplined unless the employer has “just cause,” as defined by the collective bargaining agreement, unlike most non-union employees in the private sector, who are employed “at-will,” which means that employer can fire you or change your conditions of employment at any time and for almost any reason. For more information, please see our site’s  at-will employment page .

There are many laws and court decisions that govern unions, a few of which will be discussed below. The main source of law regarding unions is federal law, as most unions are national organizations. The most important federal laws governing unions include the  National Labor Relations Act  (NLRA), the  Labor Management Relations Act  (also known as the Taft-Hartley Act), and the  Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act , discussed in more detail below. While the NLRA generally governs union organizing and collective bargaining for private sector employment, the Railway Labor Act governs employment relations for airlines and railroads enforced by the National Mediation Board, and public sector collective bargaining is generally regulated by state statute.

In September 2015, the Workplace Action for a Growing Economy Act (WAGE Act) was introduced in Congress. If passed, significant protections not currently in place for workers would be in tact to allow them to organize and join a union without fear of employer intimidation. Although other legislation including the NLRA provides union protections, the NLRB has relatively limited enforcement ability to penalize employers for violating employees’ rights when it comes to workplace protections; the WAGE Act would amend the NLRA to add these protections. This pending legislation would prove helpful in an era of smaller bargaining units with less power over coercive employer tactics. For more information on the proposed WAGE Act, please see the  WAGE Act Fact Sheet .

Labor unions officially obtained the right to represent employees under the law when the  National Labor Relations Act  (NLRA) was passed in 1935. It guarantees basic rights of private sector employees to organize trade unions, engage in collective bargaining, and enjoy other rights including striking if necessary.

The NLRA covers employees who work for employers involved in  interstate commerce . The term interstate commerce has been interpreted broadly over the years and basically includes any employer whose business involves more than one state. Today, this number stands at 14.1 million employees who are union members.

When the NLRA was passed by Congress, the  National Labor Relations Board  (NLRB) was also created. The NLRB has two basic functions: 1) overseeing employees decision making process of whether to be represented by a labor organization and; 2) prosecuting NLRA violations. Essentially, the NLRB’s job is to police the relationships between employees, their unions and their employers and ensure the NLRA is enforced.

Although many workers are covered by the NLRA, there are several important exceptions. The following groups are exempt (or not included):

• Supervisors;
• Confidential employees such as company accountants;
• Farm workers;
• The families of employers;
• Government workers;
• Most domestic workers;
• Independant contractors; and,
• Certain industry groups that are otherwise regulated.

This Act, also known as the Labor Management Relations Act (LMRA), was passed in an effort to limit the power of unions over employees and added a list of prohibited actions by unions, or “ unfair labor practices ,” to the NLRA, which had previously only prohibited unfair labor practices committed by employers.

Specifically, it was passed to address problems like restraining or coercing rights of employees when exercising their rights; discriminating against an employee because of member status in a union; refusing to bargain in good faith; encouraging employees to stop work to force special union matters; and charging excessive fees to both employees and employers. For more information on unfair labor practices, please see our  retaliation for union activity  page for additional information.

The  Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act  or LMDRA, was passed to impose a code of conduct upon unions, union officers, members, employers and management consultants so that all actors would behave fairly. Essentially, it regulates labor unions internal affairs.

Yes, there are laws in some states governing unions. The NLRA has specific provisions that allow the states to pass laws regarding specific areas of the law dealing with unions. For example, the NLRA allows states to pass “right to work” laws or “ open shop ” laws, which means you have the right to work without joining a union or paying union dues. See  the National Conference of State Legislators website  for more information.

To begin representing employees, a union must first make an application with the NLRB asking to be the representative of a particular bargaining unit. In that application/petition, the union gives a description of what workers it would like included. Typically, the employer will protest that description and want it to be narrowed – if a compromise cannot be reached, then the NLRB, using its discretion and reasonable interpretation of the NLRA, decides who is included.

A union “local” is a locally-based group of organized employees holding a charter from a national or international labor organization. A local may be confined to union members in a particular geographic area or company, or it may cover multiple contracts with various employers in the same business sector. They are often numbered to distinguish each local from each other. (For example OPCMIA Local 21). Locals have their own governing bodies which represent the interests of the national or international union but are able to organize regular meetings and be responsible to their constituents. Within the local governing body is usually an executive board elected to look over the interests of the union, control finances including union dues, and manage interactions between workers and employers. These positions often include a business representative/business agent, secretary and/or treasurer. Local branches may also affiliate with a local trades council or district council, an organization of local unions involved in all aspects of a particular trade or industry in a particular geographic area. An example of this is a local building trades organization comprised of many union locals.

Most unions have a paid staff that operates and runs the union. This staff is paid by the dues you pay as members of the union. Each union varies in size, so amount of staff will also vary. Frequently, there will also be member volunteers – so your co-workers and fellow union members may decide to volunteer their time to assist in the efforts of the union.

Yes. There is a fee associated with being a member of a union. Union dues are what you pay to help support the unions’ operating costs, which include union support staff, field staff, legal costs, negotiation costs, arbitrator’s fees, and other related costs. Many unions also use dues to create strike funds, and to support union organizing and political activity. Although there is no law that specifically designates the amount, the fee must be reasonable. Dues structures vary widely from union to union based on needs. Some unions charge a fixed monthly rate while others charge of a percentage of members paychecks. In addition, many unions charge an initiation fee when an individual first joins.

The NLRA provides that “any employee who is a member of and adheres to established and traditional tenets…or teachings of a bona fide religion, body or sect which has historically held conscientious objections to joining or financially supporting labor organizations shall not be required to join or financially support any labor organization as a condition of employment….”

Workers whose religious beliefs don’t allow them to pay dues are entitled to alternative arrangement, allowing them to be exempt from paying dues. However, these individuals may be required to make a contribution in the same amount to a nonreligious organization or a non-labor organization, and still may be required to pay reasonable costs for grievance claims on their behalf if handled by the union.

Whether or not you must join the union to work at a particular job depends on what type of “shop” is present in your workplace. The type of shop that exists within a union bargaining unit will generally be included in the contract between the union and the employer. There are four typical kinds of shops in unionized workplaces, which are:

• Closed shop
• Agency shop

A “closed shop” requires its employees to be union members as a condition to being hired for a position covered by the bargaining unit and does not allow the employer to hire anyone not willing to join the union. The most extreme example of the closed shop is the hiring hall, where employers are required to recruit union members from the hiring hall, and cannot hire employees directly. The Taft-Hartley Act made a closed shop illegal in 1947.

With a “union shop,” an employee is not required to join a union in order to be hired, but must join the union within a certain period of time after starting work, generally within thirty (30) days of starting work.

However, the employer can only fire the employee for non-union membership if the union rejects or expels the employee for nonpayment of dues/fees. So, in theory, an employee can still maintain his/her job. You should realize that although you may not be “officially” required to join the union, you may suffer a cold shoulder from other union members and officials.

If you are part of an “agency shop,” you are required to pay union dues and fees, but you are not required to have an actual membership in the union. So you can choose not to be an official member of the union, but you still have to pay dues as though you are a member. The dues you pay, however, only cover the costs of activities related to collective bargaining, contract administration and grievance adjustment, and not other items such as organizing and political activity.

If you object to your dues being spent on a particular purpose, you have the right to object until it is determined whether the money being spent is used for activity related to representing you in bargaining with the employer. Under a 1988 US Supreme Court decision known as “Beck,” unions cannot force non-members to pay a full agency fee if any portion is used to pay the costs of union political activities. As a result, unions may be required to calculate that percent of their total budget allocated to political activities, and refund that portion of your agency fee (which may be very small).

If you pay agency fees, the union, in return, must represent you in negotiations with the employer, as in an open shop bargaining unit. However, the union’s duties end there – if you are not an official member then you do not receive the broader protections, such as disciplinary processes, included in union contracts. This arrangement is legal as long as your state has not passed a “right to work” law. Most examples of these types of shops are public sector unions including teachers unions.

If you are in a “right to work” state, you may be part of an “open shop,” where the unit represents the entire bargaining unit regardless of whether or not all employees are members of the union. Right to work laws guarantee that no person can be compelled to join or not join a union, or pay dues. Generally, most open shops are in right to work states where employees are not required to join a union and pay dues, but the union is still charged with fair and equal representation of all members of the bargaining unit – not just the union members. States currently having right to work laws include: Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Kansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Wisconsin and Wyoming.

Yes. There are two types of elections associated with unions. There is an initial election to determine if the majority of employees in a bargaining unit want to be represented (or discontinue representation) by a union or whether or not to switch their union affiliation.

Once the initial election establishes the union’s presence in a particular workplace, then the union is supposed to be run democratically, where majority rules – so there will be elections and voting to choose officers and make decisions. For more information about democratic principles and unions, see the  Association for Union Democracy .

In short – yes, but it must be careful. The company has the right to express its opinions. However, the NLRA has rules that somewhat limit that freedom – companies cannot violate their employees’ right to unionize if they so choose. It is often a fine line between expressing a policy preference for no unions, which is permitted, and telling employees they cannot unionize, which is illegal. If the company goes too far to discourage its employees from joining a union, it will violate the NLRA and may have to account for its actions to the NLRB.

Companies that do not want unions in their workplace often go to great lengths to discourage union activity, hiring “unionbusters,” professional consultants or lawyers who specialize in advising employers on how to thwart union organizing drives or how to decertify unions. Unionbusters usually self-identify as “union avoidance firms,” “management consultants,” or “labor consultants.” Unionbusters help an employer create a sense of dissension and division among employees during an organizing campaign and spread misinformation about the union before workers vote in a union representation election. For more information, see the Jobs with Justice page “ Unionbusters 101 .”

Generally, if you have a problem at your workplace and you are a member of a union – your first contact is the union representative. Often, many disputes can be resolved with the help of the union. After you speak with the union representative, the representative usually speaks with other union officials. If the officials believe that you have a valid claim, then it will assist you and guide you through a complaint or grievance procedure. If you disagree with the ultimate resolution by the union, you can then appeal that decision.

In addition, whenever management begins to ask you questions that you reasonably believe could result in a disciplinary action, you have the right to refuse to answer questions until a union representative is present and you have had an opportunity to discuss the situation with that representative. You have a right to have the union representative present during questioning, to have that representative advise you, to ask your supervisors for clarifications, and to ask for any additional information after questioning. These are referred to as your Weingarten Rights.

Under the NLRB, a union that is your exclusive representative with your employer owes a duty of fair representation to employees in the bargaining unit, which means that it must treat all bargaining members fairly and equally in representing them before the employer. This duty arises when you have an individual dispute with your employer, such as a disciplinary matter or termination, and may be violated if the exclusive bargaining representative (the union) fails to properly represent you in that dispute.

If the union refuses to get involved to protect your rights as guaranteed by the union contract, you may be able to file a claim against the union for violating your “ duty of fair representation ,” also known as a “DFR claim.” However, not every situation where you are unhappy with the union’s representation gives rise to a DFR claim. You must prove that the union acted in an arbitrary manner and/or in bad faith – mere negligence or ineptitude does not count. Some factors to be considered are:

• Whether the union can rationally explain its conduct;
• Whether the situation left you with no venue to obtain a hearing/remedy for the underlying dispute; and
• Whether the union followed or deviated from its past practices in the manner in which it processed the dispute and dealt with you personally.

The duty of fair representation does not require your union to file a grievance on your behalf, take your grievance to arbitration, or appeal it every step of the way, if it feels your grievance does not have merit.

If you have a DFR claim, you can either sue the union directly in court, or can file a claim with the NLRB. Either way, you must file your DFR claim within six months of the union activity which you claim violated your duty of fair representation. Check with your  local NLRB office , or a private attorney who has expertise in working with labor issues, for more information to help you determine whether you may be able to bring a DFR case.

Yes. Under the NLRA, there are multiple avenues for you to pursue. One way is to petition the NLRB to hold a decertification election, which if successful, means the union no longer represents any of the employees in your bargaining unit. Note, this is different from a deauthorization election which simply removes any forced unionism clauses in your contract. To have a decertification election you must first obtain approval from 30% of the bargaining unit to establish this step – then you must campaign to get the majority of votes needed to get rid of the union.

The other method is to withdraw your membership – in writing. Depending on your state’s laws, you may have to continue paying dues and fees, but will not be officially a member.

The NLRA states that employees have the right

• To self-organization;
• To form, join, or assist labor organizations,
• To bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing; and
• To engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection;

And shall also have the right to refrain from any or all of such activities except to the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment as authorized elsewhere in the law. Your employer is not allowed to try to make you change your decision about joining a union by offering you benefits to change your mind or threatening to penalize you for joining.

Specific examples of the types of rights protected by the NLRA are:

• Forming or attempting to form a union among the employees of a company.
• Joining a union whether the union is recognized by the employer or not.
• Assisting a union to organize the employees of an employer.
• Going out on strike to secure better working conditions.
• Refraining from activity on behalf of a union.
• Attending meetings to discuss joining a union.
• Reading, distributing and discussing union literature (as long as you do this in nonwork areas during nonwork times, such as breaks or lunch hours).
• Wearing union buttons, T-shirts, stickers, hats or other items on the job at most worksites.
• Signing a card asking your employer to recognize and bargain with the union.
• Signing petitions or file grievances related to wages, hours, working conditions and other job issues
• Asking other employees to support the union, to sign union cards or petitions or to file grievances.
• Signing a petition for improved wages, hours, or conditions.
• Talking with coworkers about wages or working conditions.

If you think you have been retaliated against for doing any of these things, see our  retaliation for union activity  page for additional information.

The NLRA protects both your right to be a union member, and your right to choose not to be a union member. If you feel that you have been threatened for not joining a union, you must first file a charge with your  local NLRB office . This is commonly referred to as an Unfair Labor Practice charge. Then the NLRB staff will conduct an investigation to see if your claim has merit – if the investigation leads to the conclusion that something wrong happened, then the NLRB will attempt to reach some sort of agreement to settle or fix the problem. If the NLRB decides that your claim does not have merit, then you may appeal that decision, but you may need the help of an attorney.

If you think you have been retaliated against for not joining a union, see our  retaliation for union activity  page for additional information

Yes. In August the NLRB in a 3-2 vote made it easier for unions to negotiate on behalf of workers at companies relying on contractors and franchises, including fast-food chains. In its ruling it adopted a more expansive definition of joint employer In doing so, a company hiring a contractor to staff facilities will likely be considered a joint employer even if it does not actively supervise them. This means that a union representing those workers would be legally entitled to bargain with the parent company, not just the contractor. For example, if fast food employees working at a franchise owned company unionized, they would be entitled to negotiate not simply with the owner of the restaurant, but with corporate headquarters as well. However, any agreements in negotiations would only apply to that single franchise, not every employee nationwide.

If you would like more information about the laws which apply to unions, the first place to start is your  local NLRB office  and the  resources  provided on this website.

If your workplace is already organized, the best place to get more information about the union of which you are a member or will be expected to join is from the national or international headquarters of the union. Most unions maintain websites and an active presence on the Internet, which will allow you to obtain most if not all the information you need online. You can also ask your local office or shop steward for information as well.

If you would like to be involved in organizing a union at your workplace, you should contact one of the national federations of unions, so that you can be directed to one or more unions that may be interested in helping you organize your workplace. The two major national federations to which most unions belong are:

The American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO) 815 16th Street, NW Washington, DC 20006 Phone: 202-637-5000 Fax: 202-637-5058 http://www.aflcio.org How to Join a Union Change to Win 1900 L Street, NW Suite 900 Washington, DC 20036 Phone: (202) 721-0660 Fax: (202) 721-0661 http://www.changetowin.org

If you are unhappy with your union and how it conducts its business, you may wish to contact:

Association for Union Democracy (AUD) 104 Montgomery Street Brooklyn, NY 11225 Phone: 718-564-1114 [email protected] http://www.uniondemocracy.org AUD is a pro-labor, non-profit organization dedicated to advancing the principles and practices of democratic trade unionism in the North American labor movement, and provides organizing, educational, and legal assistance to union members fighting for greater control of their unions.

A group that educates workers on the benefits of union membership and works to make it easier to join unions is:

Jobs With Justice 1616 P Street NW, Suite 150 Washington, DC 20036 Phone: (202) 393-1044 Fax: (202) 822-2168 [email protected] http://www.jwj.org/ Jobs With Justice is a non-profit dedicated to promoting positive workplace standards through innovative communications, research, and policy advocacy with grassroots mobilization. It believes in public disclosure of workers’ rights.

Public and private unions each serve a distinct sector of the economy. Private unions are labor organizations that advocate on behalf of workers in industries made up of companies owned by private individuals. Private unions negotiate for things like higher wages, better benefits, and improved working conditions with the employer for whom they work. 

Public sector employees, such as teachers, police officers, postal services staff, and other government workers, are represented by public unions. Public unions negotiate wages and employment terms with state and local legislatures and congress as their employment is government funded.

Here is a  list  of labor unions in the United States.

Copyright © 2024 Workplace Fairness, All rights reserved.

• Terms of use
• Privacy Policy
• Links Policy
• Accessibility

Madeline Messa

Madeline Messa is a 3L at Syracuse University College of Law. She graduated from Penn State with a degree in journalism. With her legal research and writing for Workplace Fairness, she strives to equip people with the information they need to be their own best advocate.

LawNow Magazine

relating law to life

The Duty of Unions to Fairly Represent Their Members

May 3, 2019 By Peter Bowal

Unions are accountable to workers by the doctrine of “duty of fair representation”, the parameters of which are set out in case law.

Plight of the unionized worker

The average unionized worker is in a weak position at work. In many workplaces he will, as a condition of employment, be required to join the existing union. Or he may have been out-voted in the decision to unionize. Bringing serious concerns and directly accessing the employer is hampered by labour-management formalities. Technically, only union stewards can broker concerns and communications with bosses.

Workers are generally stuck with their union, much in the same way that they are stuck with their federal and provincial governments. They may find that their one voice and one vote carry no sway in influencing union leadership, governance, collective bargaining and other decisions. Workers are captive to their unions unilaterally deducting hundreds, or thousands, of dollars from their earnings each year. Workers and unions are analogous to citizens electing and submitting to government. Yet, one’s relationships and conditions at work are much more intensely personal than citizenship in a territory.

If the employer violates the law or collective agreement, only the union can challenge that. Individual workers have no standing in court to complain of mistreatment or wrongful dismissal by the employer. They are totally dependent upon the union, the “exclusive agent” – its good faith and competence – to take up and effectively prosecute grievances against employers. How can workers ensure their unions fairly and effectively represent them?

The good news is that the union has some accountability. This is found in the doctrine of “duty of fair representation”, which is the topic of this article.

Duty of Fair Representation

The Collective Agreement is the contract between the worker and employer. It can only be enforced by unions filing grievances on behalf of individual workers, alleging an employer breach of some kind or challenging the employer’s discipline.

There are several stages through which the parties move in any grievance process, the goal of which is always to resolve the concern. Ultimately, the union may have to take a grievance to arbitration which can be costly in terms of time, effort and resources.

Unions typically have significant discretion in whether to file and how to progress the grievance, regardless of the affected worker’s preferences. Given this power over the worker, the Labour Relations Code requires unions to treat all the workers it represents fairly.

The Supreme Court of Canada, in the 1984 decision Canadian Merchant Service Guild v. Gagnon and again in 2001 in Noel v. Societe d’energie de la Baie James , along with a number of provincial labour relations board decisions, has set out the parameters of this union duty of fair representation. Fair representation mostly requires unions to act in good faith to investigate and understand the relevant facts and issues of the case, as well as its significance and impact on the worker. Only then can it properly assess and balance the merits of the grievance.

The union must act objectively and honestly, and thoroughly review the matter. Its response must take into account the facts of the case, its significance (for example, a dismissal is more significant than a reprimand), consequences for both worker and union, and probable outcomes. It should apply for an extension of deadlines if this is permitted and appropriate.

The union’s representation must be “fair, genuine and not merely apparent, undertaken with integrity and competence”. Ultimately, the worker has no absolute right to a grievance or an arbitration. The union need not inform the worker of meetings, but the worker must be informed, and be permitted to attend, any grievance hearings.

One can also understand the union’s duty in terms of what it should not do. It should not be negligent or motivated by favouritism, unlawful discrimination, irrelevancies, bad faith, ill will or personal hostility. Union decisions cannot be arbitrary. If the union has an LRB-approved internal appeal mechanism of the grievance officer’s decisions and actions, it should be used.

Taking Your Union to the Labour Relations Board

Workers, other than those covered by the Public Service Employee Relations Act , whose unions have not fairly represented them cannot sue them in court. They have an easier, faster and cheaper recourse option – file a complaint with the Labour Relations Board (LRB) where the fairness of the union’s response will be reviewed. Technically, there is a difference between second-guessing or appealing what decision(s) the union made and how the union approached the case (the focus of the LRB review). Collective bargaining negotiations are separate from this fair representation complaint process.

Workers must file their complaint to the Alberta LRB within 90 days of the union’s decision or 45 days from being notified of the outcome of an appeal. The complaint form and procedure are online and the LRB has prepared a very helpful and comprehensive Information Bulletin #18 to guide workers through the review process when complaining about their union’s representation of their interests.

Once the complaint is filed on time, and is judged to fit within the fair representation realm, the LRB may attempt to resolve the dispute informally or strike a panel to do a review of documents and submissions from both sides. If the complaint has no merit, it is dismissed. If it appears to have merit, the matter proceeds to a LRB hearing where worker and union present their cases.

LRB Remedies for the Union’s Unfair Representation

When the Board concludes the union has breached the duty of fair representation, it can extend the time to grieve (where a grievance was not advanced) or order compensation for actual losses or damages against the union.

Our work touches upon our dignity, ambitions, social interactions, physical and emotional well-being, reputation, economic security and our inherent value as human beings – every aspect of our life fulfillment. It is very important that unions, as exclusive agents, be responsive and effective advocates for the workers in their bargaining unit against improper employer behaviour.

While unions must necessarily enjoy considerable discretion to decide whether to prosecute a worker’s grievance against the employer and how far to press it, they must act fairly. If a worker does not believe the union has treated her concern fairly, she can bring take the union to the Labour Relations Board as a fair representation complaint.

The process is streamlined, relatively low stress, without fees and efficient. Most workers should be able to handle these complaints themselves.

Looking for more information?

• Strategies for Success: A better path to preventing workplace sexual harassment by Sam Brown January 24, 2024
• 2023 Employment Law Alberta Year in Review by Joel Fairbrother December 7, 2023
• Alberta’s New Harassment Tort by Jessica Steingard June 15, 2023

The information in this article was correct at time of publishing. The law may have changed since then. The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of LawNow or the Centre for Public Legal Education Alberta.

Looking for articles like this one to be delivered right to your inbox?

Peter Bowal, formerly of the University of Calgary, is Visiting Professor of Business Law at Mercer University in Macon, Georgia.

Report | Unions and Labor Standards

Unionization increased by 200,000 in 2022 : Tens of millions more wanted to join a union, but couldn’t

Report • By Heidi Shierholz , Margaret Poydock , and Celine McNicholas • January 19, 2023

Press release

Share this page:

What this report finds: Recent data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the National Labor Relations Board show an uptick in union organizing activity in 2022. There is further evidence that many more workers would like to form a union but face barriers to doing so.

Why it matters: It’s not surprising that workers want to unionize. The advantages of unionization are well-documented. Unionized workers have higher pay and better benefits, on average, than nonunionized workers. Unions help close racial/ethnic wage gaps and also improve the health and safety of workplaces.

What can be done about it: One crucial way we can promote a more prosperous, equitable economy is to dismantle existing barriers to union organizing and collective bargaining. It is urgent that policymakers enact reforms at the federal and state levels to protect and support workers’ right to unionize.

Summary of findings

We analyzed recent data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS 2023) and the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB 2022) and found the following:

Overall unionization levels and rates

• In 2022, more than 16 million workers in the United States were represented by a union— an increase of 200,000 from 2021.
• At the same time, the share of workers represented by a union declined from 11.6% to 11.3% .
• How is it possible that unionization levels increased but unionization rates decreased in 2022? The answer is straightforward: More jobs were unionized, but nonunion jobs were added at a faster rate.

Unionization by race and gender

• The entire increase in unionization in 2022 was among workers of color—workers of color saw an increase of 231,000, while white workers saw a decrease of 31,000. Of all major racial and ethnic groups, Black workers continue to have the highest unionization rates, at 12.8%. This compares with 11.2% for white workers, 10.0% for Latinx workers, and 9.2% for Asian American and Pacific Islander (AAPI) workers.
• The gender gap in unionization is small—0.6 percentage points—and held steady in 2022. The unionization rate for men is 11.6% and the unionization rate for women is 11.0%.
• The states with the largest increases in the number of workers represented by unions in 2022 were Alabama (40,000), Maryland (40,000), Ohio (52,000), Texas (72,000), and California (99,000) .

Union activity and interest

• Between October 2021 and September 2022, the National Labor Relations Board saw a 53% increase in union election petitions , the highest single-year increase since fiscal year 2016.
• Evidence suggests that in 2022 more than 60 million workers wanted to join a union, but couldn’t .

The fact that tens of millions of workers want to join a union and can’t is a glaring testament to how broken U.S. labor law is. It is urgent that Congress pass the Protecting the Right to Organize (PRO) Act and the Public Service Freedom to Negotiate Act. State legislatures must also take available measures to boost unionization and collective bargaining.

Defining terms: Union membership versus union representation

If a workplace is unionized, all workers in the bargaining unit get the benefits of being represented by the union, even if they are not union members. Thus, the share of workers represented by a union is somewhat higher than the share of workers who are members of a union.

In 2022, the share of workers represented by a union was 11.3%, while the share of workers who were union members was 10.1%. Because all workers in a bargaining unit get the benefit of being represented by the union, union representation is the more relevant statistic when considering the impact of unionization on labor market outcomes. Therefore, we focus on union representation, rather than union membership, in our analyses.

In this report, the terms “unionization rate” and “union coverage rate” are shorthand for the union representation rate. Also note that, because the government data on unionization exclude self-employed workers, the term “workforce” in this report refers to wage and salary workers. 

Building worker power

Workers have two potential sources of leverage with respect to their employers: (1) the implicit threat that they could quit and take a job elsewhere, and (2) the presence of a union that can represent their interests via collective bargaining. Both sources of leverage got a boost in 2022.

First, with job openings at record highs, workers experienced a surge in leverage as employers sought to retain employees. Second, 2022 saw a reenergized labor movement. Public support for unions came in at a more-than-50-year high (McCarthy 2022). And unions made advances—against enormous odds—at companies like Starbucks and Amazon. In 2022, 200,000 more workers were represented by a union than in 2021.

However, the first source of leverage—record-high job openings rates—will not last forever. It is, in fact, already abating, with the latest data showing that job openings are now 12% below their March 2022 peak. 1 As the hot labor market of the recent period recedes, 2 so too will the increase in worker power that came from workers’ increased ability to quit and take another job. To sustain the increased worker power of the last year, it is crucial that workers be able to join unions.

The 2022 Bureau of Labor Statistics data on unionization

In 2022, more than 16 million workers in the United States were represented by a union—an increase of 200,000 from 2021. That included an increase of 112,000 in the private sector and an increase of 88,000 in the public sector. The biggest increases were in transportation and warehousing (+46,000), arts, entertainment, and recreation (+62,000), durable goods manufacturing (+76,000), and state government (+99,000).

While unionization levels increased, the share of workers represented by a union declined from 11.6% to 11.3% in 2022, with declines in both the private sector (from 7.0% to 6.8%) and the public sector (from 37.6% to 36.8%). How is it possible that unionization levels increased but unionization rates decreased? The answer is straightforward: More jobs were unionized, but nonunion jobs were added at a faster rate. Between 2021 and 2022, 5.3 million wage and salary jobs were added in one of the strongest years of job growth we’ve seen in four decades. 3 Though unionization increased, it was unable to keep pace with the flood of new jobs.

Industries with sizable declines in unionization rates include local government (from 43.9% to 42.7%), construction (from 13.6% to 12.4%), real estate and rental and leasing (from 6.5% to 4.5%), and transportation and warehousing (where the number of workers represented by a union grew by 46,000, as noted above, but the unionization rate declined from 16.1% to 15.5%). Industries with sizable increases in unionization rates include durable goods manufacturing (from 8.3% to 8.9%), arts, entertainment, and recreation (from 5.5% to 7.6%), and agriculture and related industries (from 3.1% to 4.3%).

The entire increase in unionization in 2022 occurred among workers of color. Workers of color saw an increase of 231,000 while white workers saw a decrease of 31,000. The number of Black workers represented by a union increased by 142,000, Latinx workers by 101,000, and AAPI workers by 64,000. 4 Of all major racial and ethnic groups, Black workers continued to have the highest unionization rates in 2022, at 12.8%. This compares with 11.2% for white workers, 10.0% for Latinx workers, and 9.2% for Asian American and Pacific Islander workers.

The numbers of men and women represented by a union increased by 135,000 and 65,000, respectively, in 2022. The gender gap in unionization is small—0.6 percentage points—and held steady in 2022. The unionization rate for men is 11.6%, while the unionization rate for women is 11.0%.

Overall unionization rates mask large differences across states. In 2022, the states with the largest shares of workers represented by unions were Hawaii (23.4%), New York (22.1%), Washington (19.1%), Rhode Island (17.7%), and California (17.6%). The states with the smallest shares of workers represented by unions were South Carolina (2.0%), North Carolina (3.9%), South Dakota (4.2%), Virginia (4.5%) and Texas (5.1%). The states with the largest increases in the number of workers represented by unions in 2022 were Alabama (40,000), Maryland (40,000), Ohio (52,000), Texas (72,000), and California (99,000).

Workers show growing interest in joining unions

The share of nonunion workers who would like to have a union at their workplace is far higher than the share who actually have union representation. Survey data from 2017 show that nearly half of nonunion workers (48%) would vote to unionize their workplace if they could. The 2017 figure is up substantially from previous decades; in 1977 and 1995, only about one-third (32–33%) of nonunion, nonmanagerial workers said they would vote to unionize if they could (Kochan et al. 2018; EPI 2021).

While 2017 is the most recent year the survey of nonunion workers was conducted, we presume that the share of nonunion workers who would like to unionize was at least 48% in 2022, if not higher. Assuming that to be true, that means that more than 60 million workers in 2022 wanted to join a union, but couldn’t.

The assumption that the share of nonunion workers who would like to be in a union did not drop between 2017 and 2022 is a reasonable assumption given that a more recent survey indicates that public approval of unions grew from 61% to a more-than-50-year high of 71% between 2017 and 2022 (McCarthy 2022). (Note that the share of the public who approve of unions is related to—but not the same measure as—the share of nonunionized workers who would join a union if they could.)

Note that the large increase in the share of workers expressing a desire for unionization over the last four decades has occurred at the same time the share of workers represented by a union has declined. Today’s 11.3% unionization rate is well under half of what it was roughly 40 years ago (Mishel, Rhinehart, and Windham 2020). But despite the decline in union representation and the growing gap between the demand for and the availability of union representation, workers continued to exercise their right to form unions and bargain collectively in 2022. Union activity last year included organizing drives within notable companies such as Starbucks (Lucas 2022), Amazon (Velasquez and Irizarry Aponte 2022), Trader Joe’s (Scheiber 2022), and Chipotle (Kaori Gurley 2022). Graduate students (Johnston 2022) and workers at an electric vehicle plant (Isidore 2022) also sought to organize in 2022. Workers also engaged in numerous strikes. Student workers at Columbia University (Wong 2022) and workers at the San Francisco Airport (de Guzman 2022) succeeded in obtaining higher pay and better health benefits after going on strike. These examples demonstrate the critical leverage collective action provides to workers when negotiating for better pay and working conditions.

It’s worth noting that the current trend of increasing popularity of unions is still unfolding. It takes time to organize and win union elections, and not all of the union activity of the last year will have yet translated into increased union membership.

Why do workers want unions?

When workers are able to come together, form a union, and collectively bargain, their wages, benefits, and working conditions improve. For example, a worker covered by a union contract earns 10.2% more in wages on average than a peer with similar education, occupation, and experience in a nonunionized workplace in the same sector (Banerjee et al. 2021).

Further, unions raise wages for women and reduce racial/ethnic wage gaps. Hourly wages for women represented by a union are 4.7% higher on average than for nonunionized women with comparable characteristics. Black workers represented by a union are paid 13.1% more than their nonunionized Black peers, and Hispanic workers represented by a union are paid 18.8% more than their nonunionized Hispanic peers (Banerjee et al. 2021). Research by Farber et al. (2021) confirms that unions have historically helped, and continue to help, close wage gaps for Black and Hispanic workers (which also means that the decline of unionization over the last four decades has contributed to the increase in the Black–white wage gap over that period).

Unions also provide workers with better benefits. For example, union workers are far more likely to be covered by employer-provided health insurance: More than nine in 10 workers covered by a union contract (95%) have access to employer-sponsored health benefits, compared with just 69% of nonunion workers (BLS 2022a). Further, union employers contribute more to their employee’s health care benefits. Union workers also have greater access to paid sick days: More than nine in 10 workers—92%—covered by a union contract have access to paid sick days, compared with 77% of nonunion workers (BLS 2022b).

Unions also improve the health and safety of workplaces by providing health insurance and paid sick time, requiring safety equipment, and empowering workers to report unsafe conditions without fear of retaliation (Zoorob 2018; Amick et al. 2015). So-called right-to-work laws—which weaken unions by allowing workers to receive union benefits without paying their share of union representation costs—has been associated with a roughly 14% increase in the rate of occupational fatalities (Zoorob 2018).

The benefits of unionization go beyond unionized workplaces. When local economies have greater shares of union workers, nonunion workers benefit, because unions effectively set broader standards—including higher wages—which nonunion employers must meet to attract and retain the workers they need (Rosenfeld, Denice, and Laird 2016; Mishel 2021b). Further, high unionization rates are consistently associated with a much broader set of positive spillover effects across multiple dimensions. These positive outcomes include higher state and local minimum wages, better health benefits, easier access to unemployment insurance, access to paid sick leave, access to paid family and medical leave, and unrestricted voting opportunities (Banerjee et al. 2021). This all points to the fact that one of the most important things that could be done to generate a more prosperous, equitable economy is to dismantle existing barriers to union organizing and collective bargaining (McNicholas et al. 2019; Oliver 2021; Mishel 2021a).

NLRB elections are on the rise

The NLRB is a small independent agency tasked with administering the National Labor Relations Act, which guarantees most private-sector employees the right to form unions and collectively bargain. The NLRB is responsible for conducting union elections to determine if workers wish to be represented by a union.

During fiscal year 2022, the NLRB saw a 53% increase in union election petitions. This is the highest number of union election petitions filed since fiscal year 2016 (NLRB 2022). Further, workers are increasingly winning these elections: The rate at which workers are winning NLRB union elections has increased steadily since 2020. As of October 2022, the win rate of NLRB-conducted union elections was 71.4% (Glass 2022). As described in the next section, the disconnect between the rise in union elections and decline in unionization rates is the result of labor laws that allow employers to fiercely oppose workers’ organizing efforts.

Obstacles to unionization

A key contributor to the decline of unions in recent decades is fierce corporate opposition to union organizing. It is now standard, when workers seek to organize, for employers to hire union avoidance consultants to coordinate intense anti-union campaigns. An EPI analysis concluded that private-sector employers spend nearly $340 million per year hiring union avoidance advisers to help them prevent employees from organizing (McNicholas et al. 2019). And though the National Labor Relations Act makes it illegal for private-sector employers to intimidate, coerce, or fire workers in retaliation for participating in union-organizing campaigns, the penalties are grossly insufficient to provide a meaningful disincentive for such behavior (Oliver 2021).

The persistence of illegal retaliation is evident in a review of federal records: Employers are charged with violating federal law in 41.5% of all union election campaigns. One out of five union election campaigns involve a charge that a worker was illegally fired for union activity (McNicholas et al. 2019). And these data do not in clude illegal activity that was never brought before the NLRB, nor the veiled threats and other legal ways that employers can thwart unionizing efforts thanks to weak labor laws (Lafer and Loustaunau 2020).

What can policymakers do to protect workers’ rights?

Despite blatant attacks on union organizing, policymakers have neglected to update labor law to ensure that workers have a meaningful right to union representation in their workplace. The consequences are clear in the data. While unionization levels increased in 2022, the share of workers in a union decreased despite a substantial amount of union activity and extremely high union popularity, and that drop is part of a decades-long decline in unionization. The decline is occurring not because workers don’t want unions, but because our current system of labor law is broken.

Recent worker organizing efforts send a clear message that workers want unions. We must therefore adopt policies that make it easier for workers to form unions.

At the federal level, the Protecting the Right to Organize (PRO) Act provides a comprehensive set of reforms that would strengthen private-sector workers’ right to form a union and engage in collective bargaining. The Public Service Freedom to Negotiate Act guarantees public-sector workers the right to form a union and engage in collective bargaining.

There is also room for improvement at the state level. Currently, more than half of U.S. states lack comprehensive collective bargaining laws for state and local public-sector workers. In addition, millions of agricultural and domestic workers are excluded from collective bargaining laws except in states that have passed legislation to specifically cover them (McNicholas et al. 2020).

To generate an economy that works for everyone, the union revitalization of the recent period must be sustained and increased. Policy changes at the federal and state levels are crucial to restoring a fair balance of power between workers and employers. The Biden administration, Congress, and state legislatures must institute policies that promote the right to union representation and collective bargaining.

1. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Job Openings: Total Nonfarm [JTSJOL], retrieved from FRED, Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis; https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/JTSJOL, January 11, 2023.

2. It’s important to note that if a recession occurs in the near term, it will represent an enormous policy failure. Recent data have been encouraging that bringing inflation under control without causing a recession is possible if policymakers are patient. If the Fed instead ignores the signs of disinflation coming down the pipeline and continues rapid interest rate hikes, a recession is likely. If this happens, it will not have been an inevitable casualty in a necessary fight against inflation—it will have been an overreaction and a mistake. See Bivens 2022.

3. The employment change here refers to the change in employment of wage and salary workers in the Current Population Survey, which is found in the release of the union membership numbers.

4. Note that in this analysis, Latinx workers can be of any race, so these categories overlap. For example, white Latinx workers are counted as both white and Latinx, and Black Latinx workers are counted as both Black and Latinx.

Amick, Benjamin C., Sheilah Hogg-Johnson, Desiree Latour-Villamil, and Ron Saunders. 2015. “ Protecting Construction Worker Health and Safety in Ontario, Canada: Identifying a Union Safety Effect .”  Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine 57, no. 12: 1337–1342,  https://doi.org/10.1097/JOM.0000000000000562 .

Banerjee, Asha, Margaret Poydock, Celine McNicholas, Ihna Mangundayao, and Ali Sait. 2021.  Unions Are Not Only Good for Workers, They’re Good for Communities and for Democracy . Economic Policy Institute, December 2021.

Bivens, Josh. 2022. “ Recent Data Indicate That a ‘Soft Landing’ Is Still in Reach—The Fed Should Try to Secure It .” Working Economics Blog (Economic Policy Institute), October 31, 2022.

Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). 2022a. “ Table 2. Medical Care Benefits: Access, Participation, and Take-Up Rates, March 2022 .”  Employee Benefits in the United States . Last modified September 22, 2022. 

Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). 2022b. “ Table 6. Selected Paid Leave Benefits: Access, March 2022 .”  Employee Benefits in the United States . Last modified September 22, 2022.

Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). 2023. “Union Members Summary” (economic news release). January 19, 2023.

De Guzman, Dianne. 2022. “ SFO Airport Strike Ends with Restaurant Workers Receiving Raises .” Eater San Francisco , October 4, 2022.

Economic Policy Institute (EPI). 2021. “ Working People Want a Voice at Work ” (fact sheet). April 2021.

Farber, Henry S., Daniel Herbst, Ilyana Kuziemko, and Suresh Naidu. 2021. “ Unions and Inequality Over the Twentieth Century: New Evidence from Survey Data .”  Quarterly Journal of Economics  136, no. 3 (August): 1325–1385,  https://doi.org/10.1093/qje/qjab012 .

Glass, Aurelia. 2022. “ The NLRB Protects Workers’ Right to Organize, Yet Remains Underfunded .” Center for American Progress, December 5, 2022.

Isidore, Chris. 2022. “ UAW Wins Key Vote to Represent Ohio Electric Car Battery Factory .” CNN, December 9, 2022.

Johnston, Katie. 2022. “ Graduate Student Workers at BU Vote to Unionize .” Boston Globe , December 8, 2022.

Kaori Gurley, Lauren. 2022. “ Michigan Chipotle Outlet the Chain’s First to Unionize .” Washington Post , August 25, 2022.

Kochan, Thomas A., Duanyi Yang, William T. Kimball, and Erin L. Kelly. 2018. “ Worker Voice in America: Is There a Gap Between What Workers Expect and What They Experience? ”  ILR Review  72, no. 1 (January): 3–38, https://doi.org/10.1177/0019793918806250 .

Lafer, Gordon, and Lola Loustaunau. 2020.  Fear at Work: An Inside Account of How Employers Threaten, Intimidate, and Harass Workers to Stop Them from Exercising Their Right to Collective Bargaining . Economic Policy Institute, July 2020.

Lucas, Amelia. 2022. “ Here’s a Map of Starbucks Stores That Voted to Unionize .” CNBC, December 9, 2022.

McCarthy, Justin. 2022. “ U.S. Approval of Labor Unions at Highest Point Since 1965 .” Gallup, August 30, 2022.

McNicholas, Celine, Margaret Poydock, Julia Wolfe, Ben Zipperer, Gordon Lafer, and Lola Loustaunau. 2019.  Unlawful: U.S. Employers Are Charged with Violating Federal Law in 41.5% of All Union Election Campaigns . Economic Policy Institute, December 2019.

McNicholas, Celine, Lynn Rhinehart, Margaret Poydock, Heidi Shierholz, and Daniel Perez. 2020.  Why Unions Are Good for Workers—Especially in a Crisis Like COVID-19: 12 Policies That Would Boost Worker Rights, Safety, and Wages . Economic Policy Institute, August 2020.

Mishel, Lawrence. 2021a.  Identifying the Policy Levers Generating Wage Suppression and Wage Inequality . Economic Policy Institute, May 2021. 

Mishel, Lawrence. 2021b.  The Enormous Impact of Eroded Collective Bargaining on Wages .  Economic Policy Institute, April 2021. 

Mishel, Lawrence, Lynn Rhinehart, and Lane Windham. 2020.  Explaining the Erosion of Private-Sector Unions: How Corporate Practices and Legal Changes Have Undercut the Ability of Workers to Organize and Bargain . Economic Policy Institute, November 2020. 

National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). 2022. “ Election Petitions Up 53%, Board Continues to Reduce Case Processing Time in FY22 ” (news release). October 6, 2022.

Oliver, John. 2021. “ Union Busting: Last Week Tonight with John Oliver .” HBO. YouTube video. Published November 15, 2021.

Rosenfeld, Jake, Patrick Denice, and Jennifer Laird. 2016.  Union Decline Lowers Wages of Nonunion Workers . Economic Policy Institute, August 2016. 

Scheiber, Noam. 2022. “ Trader Joe’s Workers at a Massachusetts Store Form a Union, a Milestone in the Chain .” New York Times , July 28, 2022.

Velasquez, Josefa, and Claudia Irizarry Aponte. 2022. “ Amazon Warehouse Workers Win Historic Union Vote on Staten Island .” The City , April 1, 2022.

Wong, Ashley. 2022. “ Student Workers at Columbia End 10-Week Strike After Reaching a Deal .” New York Times , January 7, 2022.

Zoorob, Michael. 2018. “ Does ‘Right to Work’ Imperil the Right to Health? The Effect of Labour Unions on Workplace Fatalities .”  Occupational and Environmental Medicine 75, no. 10 (June): 736–738,  https://dx.doi.org/10.1136/oemed-2017-104747 .

See related work on Collective bargaining and right to organize | Unions and Labor Standards

See more work by Heidi Shierholz , Margaret Poydock , and Celine McNicholas

Sign up to stay informed

New research, insightful graphics, and event invites in your inbox every week.

See related work on Collective bargaining and right to organize and Unions and Labor Standards

Track EPI on Twitter

• Steward Portal
• Board of Directors Portal

Member vs. Non-member: Representation and benefits

May 13, 2022 | Article

SEIU Local 1000 represents nearly 100,000 state employees, both members and non-members alike. As our membership grows, our Union becomes stronger, and more state employees are taking advantage of the benefits of membership.

Our Union negotiates for our contract, and enforcing the contract is a Local 1000 priority.

When management violates our contract, or one of our represented employees faces discipline or other job-related issues, there are differences in the type of support and representation offered to Union members vs. non-members. Here are some examples:

• Legal representation
• Assistance in contractual & non-contractual related issues
• Discipline appeals to State Personnel Board (SPB)
• Rejection on probation appeals to SPB
• Merit appeals to SPB
• AWOL appeals to CalHR
• Insurance & assistance services
• Affordable group rates & discounts
• Scholarship opportunities
• Apprenticeship Opportunities
• Purchasing Power
• Leadership & career development opportunities
• A voice and a vote on negotiating your contract
• You only receive assistance in contract-related issues, such as grievances and arbitration
• One-time union representation provided if you have an initial investigatory interview
• No representation in discipline, rejection on probation, merit or AWOL appeals

If you have questions about membership, contact your local Job Steward, or call the SEIU Local 1000 Member Resource Center (MRC) at 866.471.SEIU (7348).

• DLC 766 President Shrhonda Ward Cell: 916.812.3367Email: [email protected] Vice President/Chief Steward VACANT   Secretary VACANT   Treasurer VACANT   Unit 1 CBUR VACANT   Unit 1 DBUR  VACANT   Unit 4 DBUR Karen Jefferies   Click here to view… Read more : DLC 766
• DLC 767 President Benjamin Arriaga   Vice President/Chief Steward VACANT   Secretary/Treasurer VACANT   Unit 1 DBUR Stephanie Russell   Unit 4 DBUR Nicole Crist   Click here to view the DLC meetings calendar. Below is a… Read more : DLC 767
• DLC 768 President Darrell Kirby Cell: 916.743.0490 Email: [email protected] Vice President / Chief Steward Stephanie Reese   Secretary / Treasurer Dashay Starks   Unit 1 DBUR Shelia Byars   Unit 1 CBUR VACANT   Unit 3 DBUR Mathew Colvin  … Read more : DLC 768
• DLC 769 President Darrell Kirby Cell: 916.743.0490 Email: [email protected] Vice President / Chief Steward Stephanie Reese   Secretary / Treasurer Dashay Starks   Unit 1 DBUR Shelia Byars   Unit 1 CBUR VACANT   Unit 3 DBUR Mathew Colvin  … Read more : DLC 769
• DLC 782 President Tommy Cornelius Vice President/Chief Steward Latanya Molina-Rodriguez   Secretary VACANT   Treasurer VACANT   Unit 1 DBUR Samantha Colbert   Unit 4 DBUR VACANT   Unit 14 DBUR Howard Hall Click here to view… Read more : DLC 782
• DLC 781  President Ramona Cramer Vice President / Chief Steward VACANT Unit 1 DBUR Stuart Bennett Unit 1 CBUR Gina Crawford   Unit 4 DBUR Nickia Brisco Click here to view the DLC meetings calendar. Below is… Read more : DLC 781 
• DLC 784 President Cullen Kral Cell: 916.397.1244 Email: [email protected]  Vice President/Chief Steward Jared Reece   Secretary  Eric Dunn   Treasurer Michael (Mike) Allen   Unit 1 DBUR Sean McWhirter   Unit 4 DBUR Marc Di Stefano   Unit 14 DBUR… Read more : DLC 784
• DLC 786 President Theresa Taylor Vice President/ Chief Steward Mech Sherles Secretary Angela McPhaill Treasurer Michelle Haunold Lorenz Unit 1 DBUR VACANT Unit 15 DBUR VACANT Click here to view the DLC meetings calendar. Below is a… Read more : DLC 786
• DLC 788 President Heather Kessler   Vice President / Chief Steward VACANT   Treasurer Kelly Maurie   Secretary VACANT   Unit 1 DBUR VACANT   Unit 1 CBUR VACANT   Unit 1 CBUR VACANT   Unit 15… Read more : DLC 788
• DLC 850 President Jaime Vogel Bargaining Chair Andrew Vasicek Vice President / Chief Steward Juan Daza Treasurer Sergio Bustamante DBUR Andrew Vasicek DBUR Ivy Cheung DBUR Jennifer Keefe Cantore DBUR Lita Abella DBUR Shataka Shores-Brooks Senior Steward… Read more : DLC 850
• African-American Committee
• Announcement
• Asian-Pacific Islander Committee
• Bargaining Unit 1 Updates
• Bargaining Unit 11 Updates
• Bargaining Unit 14 Updates
• Bargaining Unit 15 Updates
• Bargaining Unit 17 Updates
• Bargaining Unit 20 Updates
• Bargaining Unit 21 Updates
• Bargaining Unit 3 Updates
• Bargaining Unit 4 Updates
• Bargaining Updates – General
• Call Center Work Group
• DLC Chapter
• Environmental Committee
• Latino Latina Committee
• Lavender (LGBTQI) Committee
• Local 1000 Event
• Native American Committee
• NextGen Committee
• Notification
• Photo Gallery
• Political Event
• Press Release
• Publication
• State Bar Updates
• Steward Resources
• Uncategorized
• Union Update Newsletter
• Women’s Empowerment Committee

Trending News

Related Practices & Jurisdictions

• Labor & Employment
• Administrative & Regulatory
• All Federal

The National Labor Relations Board (NRLB) has changed the dynamic in union organizing efforts by shifting responsibility to the employer to seek a representation election if the Union provides the employer with representation cards from a majority of the employees. In a recent decision, the Board created a new dynamic for organizing. Rather than requiring the Union to file for an election if the employer doubts the majority of the employees desire a union, now it is the responsibility of the employer which doubts the majority interest of employees in recognizing the union as their representative, to file a request for election with the NLRB. The decision will impact the steps employers must take when unions request recognition on the basis of a card check. If representation is challenged, and the employer commits an unfair labor practice that would normally result in the setting aside of the election, the employer’s election petition will be dismissed and the employer will be obligated to bargain a contract with the union.

Background Facts

In 2019, 366 cement truck drivers and trainers from  Cemex Construction Materials Pacific LLC  voted against union representation by the International Brotherhood of Teamsters (the “Union”). Following the vote, the General Counsel and Union alleged that the truck drivers and trainers voted against the Union because  Cemex  had engaged in “extensive unlawful and otherwise coercive conduct before, during and after the election,” and such conduct required remedial measures, including setting aside the election and ordering  Cemex  to bargain with the Union. After a NLRB hearing regarding the Union’s allegations of unfair labor practices against  Cemex , the judge found that  Cemex  had violated Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act (“the Act”) more than 24 times by threatening employees with plant closures, job loss, and other reprisals if they voted for the Union. The judge also found that  Cemex  violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by surveilling and interrogating employees about their union activity, prohibiting employees from talking with the Union’s organizers or displaying pro-union paraphernalia, and by hiring security guards to intimidate employees immediately before the election occurred. The judge also found that  Cemex’s  discipline of a union activist employee for talking to the Union’s organizers during “company time” violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. Finally, the judge recommended setting aside the election, and providing the Union with several special access remedies prior to re-running the election. Shortly thereafter,  Cemex , the Union, and the General Counsel filed exceptions and supporting briefs with the NLRB raising concerns with portions of the judge’s decision.

New Union Representation Framework Announced

On August 25, 2023, the NLRB issued its decision,  Cemex Construction Materials Pacific LLC and International Brotherhood of Teamsters , 372 NLRB No. 130 (2023), in response to  Cemex’s , the Union’s, and the General Counsel’s exceptions. Ultimately, the  Cemex  decision announced a new framework that employers must consider when determining whether they must bargain with a union that has not yet had a representation election. Specifically, the  Cemex  decision holds that when a union requests recognition because it claims that it has authorization cards for a majority of employees in a bargaining unit, the employer must do one of two things:

• recognize the union and bargain with the union
• promptly file (promptly is defined as within 2 weeks of the union’s demand for recognition) a petition for election (RM petition) seeking an election

The  Cemex  decision also warned that if an employer proceeds with option 2 above and promptly files a RM petition seeking an election, the employer must not commit any unfair labor practices during that time that would require setting aside the election. The  Cemex  decision further clarified that if an employer did engage in an unfair labor practice after filing its RM petition, the RM petition would be dismissed, and instead of a re-run of the election, the NLRB will order the employer to bargain with the Union.

Why Did the NLRB Issue This New Framework for Union Representation?

According to the NLRB, the revised framework represents “an effort to effectuate employees’ right to bargain through their chosen representative, while acknowledging that employers have the option to invoke the statutory provisions allowing them to pursue a Board election.”

Employer Takeaways

The  Cemex  decision will require employers to immediately re-examine their process on how to respond to union requests for recognition when the union claims that it has authorization cards for a majority of the employees in a “bargaining unit”. Importantly, this new  Cemex  framework can be applied to cases that are currently in process before the NLRB.

Therefore, it is important for employers to evaluate how they will respond to organizing efforts when a card check arises. Employers may consider a range of options, depending on their risk tolerance and the employment setting, including:

• Know Your Options  – Employers must be familiar with the two options available when a union requests recognition claiming it has authorization cards for a majority of employees in a bargaining unit.
• Know the Time Limit  – The Cemex decision requires employers to “promptly” file the RM petition after a union’s demand for recognition, and states that “Allowing for unforeseen circumstances that may be presented in a particular case,  we will normally interpret “promptly” to require an employer to file its RM petition within 2 weeks of the union’s demand for recognition. ”
• Avoid Unfair Labor Practices Following Union’s Demand for Recognition  – Understand the behaviors which may give rise to the allegation of an unfair labor practice. Under the Board philosophy, the consequences for engaging in an unfair labor practice after a union requests recognition can be significant.
• Supervisor Training  – Supervisor training before the organizing effort begins is critical. Failure to understand the charges that can come from employer representative actions results in a greater likelihood for error and the need to bargain with the union without an election occurring.
• Proactively Draft Strategies and Procedures  – Become familiar with the Cemex decision and draft or revise any company policies and procedures used to respond to union requests for representations, including “union free” communications.

Current Legal Analysis

More from von briesen & roper, s.c., upcoming legal education events.

Sign Up for e-NewsBulletins

Contact Member Lifeline:  (313) 937-5105

Law Enforcement Legal Information for POAM Members Legal Union Representation – Your Weingarten Rights!

By: --> --> November 24, 2009

By: Frank A. Guido, POAM General Counsel

The right to union representation in an employer conducted meeting or interview was established in the landmark decision in NLRB v J. Weingarten, Inc. , 420 US 251 (1975). The Court held that an employee has a statutory right to insist on the presence of a union representative in an interview which the employee reasonably believes might result in disciplinary action. While the Weingarten decision dealt with the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA)and its application to the private sector, the principle has been adopted and applied to public employee rights under PERA by the Michigan judiciary and MERC. Regents of the University of Michigan v Local 1583 AFSCME , 1977 MERC Lab Op 496; Wayne-Westland Education Association v Wayne-Westland Community Schools , 176 Mich App 361, 439 NW2d 372 (1989).

The right to union representation and assistance during an interview is founded in the employee’s right to act in concert with other employees for mutual aid and protection. Section 9 of PERA, therefore, recognizes the same principle found in section 7 of the NLRA.

The purpose of union representation in an interview is to safeguard the employee’s interest as well as the interest of the entire bargaining unit to insure the employer does not impose punishment unjustly. A knowledgeable union representative can assist the employer by listing favorable facts which an inarticulate or fearful employee may omit. E.I. DuPont DeNemours , 289 NLRB 627 (1988).

There are two threshold requirements that must exist to invoke the Weingarten right: (1) The employee must have a reasonable belief the interview may lead to discipline, and (2) The employee must demand a union representative.

Applying the first requirement, the employer’s statement of intention is controlling. When an employee is called in for a meeting without a union representative, the employee should ask whether it is about anything that could possibly lead to discipline. If the employer responds in the affirmative or responds in a way that allows for the possibility of discipline resulting, the employee should demand a union representative. If the employer responds that there is no possibility that the meeting will result in discipline, then the Weingarten right does not apply since the assurance of the employer negates existence of a reasonable belief that discipline may result.

Under the first requirement, the threatened discipline must be of the employee, not discipline of another employee. There is no Weingarten right when the employer is interviewing an employee about another employee who is subject to possible discipline.

The “reasonable belief” standard which determines the propriety of an employee’s request for union representation, is not applicable to an employer giving of instruction, training, or correction of work technique, Weingarten , 420 US at 257-58; giving of notice of discipline, Baton Rouge , 246 NLRB 995 (1979) [Note: Due process rights at termination, Cleveland Board of Education v Loudermill , 470 US 532 (1985).]

The selection of a particular representative is the right of the employee. The employer may not designate its preference of which union representative can appear. City of Fraser , 1992 MERC Lab Op 279. Where a union representative is not immediately available, the employee does not waive the right to have union representation, City of Fraser , 1993 MERC Lab Op 304; Supervalue Xenia , 236 NLRB 1581 (1978). The employer’s denial of an employee’s representative of choice is not a violation of PERA if the demand is for a representative from a far-away worksite and other representatives are readily available. City of Muskegon , 1994 MERC Lab Op 92.

POAM has been at the forefront of fighting for Weingarten representation rights. For example, in Township of Redford , 1984 MERC Lab Op 1056 an interview was being conducted by the Civil Rights Commission in the presence of the employer with questioning by the employer’s attorney. The employer denied a request for a union representative which was a direct violation of PERA. The violation of PERA occurred despite discipline not issuing to the employee.

In other decisions it has been held that an employee is not entitled to a union representative where meetings were held for the purpose of obtaining written statements and the employee was given several days to prepare responses. No questions were asked to the employee during the meeting, hence a “reasonable belief” was absent. Flat Rock , 1996 MERC Lab Op 455.

Where an employee was subjected to a sergeant’s loud and threatening manner and the sergeant took offense to a question raised by the officer during the meeting, the employee possessed a reasonable belief the sergeant intended to discipline, therefore, the officer was entitled to a representative. Charter Township of Clinton , 1995 MERC Lab Op 415.

An employee has a right to seek union representation upon realizing during the course of an investigation that he is not a mere witness but the target of an investigation, even though the request was not made at the inception of the interview. Penn-Dixie , 253 NLRB 91 (1980). Once an employee makes an initial request for a union representative, it need not be renewed in subsequent interviews. Ball Plastics , 257 NLRB 971 (1981).

The right to union representation also exists where an employer has made only a tentative decision to impose discipline prior to an interview. Ohio Masonic Home , 251 NLRB 606 (1980). The announcement by an employer prior to a meeting of the intention to discharge an employee, which results in further questioning of the employee concerning the incident during the course of a meeting which results in institution of lesser discipline, still entitles the employee to union representation. EPG Industries, Inc. , 251 NLRB 1146 (1980).

A meeting scheduled to inform an employee of discipline would not prohibit entitlement to union representation where, during the course of the meeting, the employer advised of its intent to discuss the conduct, thereby suggesting the employee respond, which invoked a reasonable fear that additional discipline might be imposed upon the attempt of the employee to defend his actions. City of Kalamazoo , 1996 MERC Lab Op 556.

Members are encouraged to assert their Weingarten right due to the valuable protection it affords:

• The union representative can serve as a witness to prevent the giving of a false account of the interview.
• The union representative can object to intimidating or confusing questions.
• The union representative can warn an employee against losing his or her temper.
• The union representative can raise extenuating factors at the conclusion of the interview.

When the right to union representation exists, the next question is what is the role of the union representative.

The Union representative is not allowed to interfere with questioning by answering on behalf of the employee. City of Oak Park , 1995 MERC Lab Op 576. In NLRB v Southwestern Bell Telephone Company , 730 F2d 166 (5th Cir, 1984), it was held that a union representative must be afforded an opportunity to participate in the investigatory interview, however, the meeting is not to be transformed into an adversary contest. An employer may insist that the union representative not answer questions put to the employee, however, the representative is allowed to consult with the employee and is permitted at the end of the interview to make additions, suggestions or clarifications. In addition, the employee cannot be prohibited from consulting with the representative during the interview. Southwestern Bell Telephone Company v NLRB , 667 F2d 470 (5th Cir, 1982).

Removal of a union representative from an interview subsequent to advice to an employee to only answer questions once, is not a violation of representation where such rigid limitation converts the interview into a formalized adversarial forum contrary to Weingarten . The representative does have a right to object to questions which may reasonably be construed as harassing. New Jersey Bell Telephone Company , 308 NLRB 277 (1992).

A representative during an interview has a right not only to be present but also to participate. As a result, an employer improperly advised a union representative that he was not allowed to speak but could only write notes and whisper in the employee’s ear. Saginaw Township , 1989 MERC Lab Op 1158. Where an employer advised the union representative that his presence was only a courtesy and that the representative had to remain silent and could not interrupt, but had to sit down or be put out, the employer was deemed to have committed an unfair labor practice. Citing National Labor Relations Board decisions under Weingarten , an ALJ held that preventing a union representative from participating or ordering a representative to remain silent conflicts with the Weingarten rule, which contemplates meaningful representation as the role of the representative is to provide assistance and counsel to employees. City of Detroit Recreation Department , 1990 MERC Lab Op 388.

As a matter of practice, POAM recommends that an employee always demand union representation as many employers will allow representation even in situations where no discipline is contemplated. Where representation is denied under questionable circumstances, POAM will consider filing an unfair labor practice charge. In addition, the union representative and employee should be aware of the implementation of Garrity rights during the interview process and be ready to assert the Garrity protection where appropriate.

Don't Miss a Beat Subscribe To Our Mailing List

• Enter your email address *

MEET THE POAM MOBILE APP Stay Informed With Law Enforcement News

• Member Login
• Request Free Help
• Submit a Tip
• How Do I Opt Out From My Union?

Who represents me after I opt-out of my union?

• What are Janus Rights?
• Collective Bargaining Agreements
• Where do Union Dues go?
• Latest News
• Press Coverage
• How to Join
• Member Spotlight

Since the  Janus v. AFSCME  ruling in June 2018, many public sector workers have asked us what their daily representation would be like if they resigned from the union. Here are two important things to note:

1. Under current state laws, your union is still required to represent you.

Under the Public Employee Relations Act, a public sector union such as AFSCME, SEIU, UFCW, or PSEA is the “exclusive bargaining representative” of all government employees in a workplace. That means the union is the exclusive representative on labor contract issues for all workers in a bargaining unit; this covers union members and non-members alike. The union remains your exclusive representative and legally cannot discriminate against you on the basis of your status as a nonmember.

Before the Janus decision, non-members were required to pay agency fees as a condition of employment even if that employee disagreed with the political activities of the union. The Janus decision established that it is a free speech violation to force a teacher, state, or municipal employee to join or pay fees to a labor union.

2. If you are not satisfied with your union representation, you and your coworkers could change it.

Workplaces that have local, independent unions unconnected with the state and national union provide the same services that state and national unions offer – without the large overhead costs and political agendas. For example, the Roscommon Teachers’ Association in Michigan cut ties with the NEA in 2012 and was able to reduce union dues from $980 to $600 per teacher per year. The union uses its dues to keep a labor attorney on retainer to handle workplace issues and grievances. Employees who resign from the union can opt to reconstitute as a local-only union and recreate the same kind of collective services.

Let’s Get Connected

We offer a free membership program, networking opportunities, and professional development scholarships to support qualifying public employees. Sign up today to receive updates from our team.

• Name * First Last
• Phone (Optional)
• Email This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Employee/Labor Relations

Bargaining Unit Matrix

• ELR How To's
• Performance Management
• Union Requests
• Union Contacts
• Forms & Templates
• Union Representation FAQs
• File a Complaint
• Work Life Integration
• Campus Safety and Crime Statistics
• Exit Interview
• Abusive Conduct in the Workplace
• Contracting Out

Union Representation Frequently Asked Questions

Below are some common questions that employees have asked concerning the representation process and its implications.  If you have additional questions:

• speak with your manager
• contact UC Merced’s Labor and Employee Relations at (209) 228-8247
• call the UCOP Office of Labor Relations at (510) 987-9900

What is a union? A union is an organization which has as one of its purposes to collectively bargain the wages, hours, and conditions of employment of a particular group of employees.  It acts as your exclusive representative for these purposes.  In order for the union to become your exclusive representative, a sufficient number of employees must show an interest in being represented.

What does it mean to be exclusively represented? If, through the representation process, the union represents you, it also represents all employees in the same or similar job classification throughout the UC system.  The union has the authority and the exclusive right to negotiate with UC management on the amount of wages, benefits and working conditions that the employees will receive.

How does a union become my exclusive representative? A union can collect enough authorization cards from you and your coworkers.  It will need to collect cards from over 50% of the designated group of employees (called a bargaining unit) to automatically become your collective bargaining representative.

It can also happen by a vote.  In order for a vote to happen, the union will have to collect authorization cards from at least 30% of the bargaining unit. Then the Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) would hold an election. In order for the union to win the election, more than 50% of the employees who vote would have to vote in favor of unionization.  If that happened, you would be represented by the union.

What is an authorization card? An authorization card is a document expressing support for the union and requires your signature.

What does it mean if I signed an authorization card? It means you are choosing the union to act as your representative.  A union may submit these cards to PERB, and based on a card check and not an election, become your exclusive representative if it obtains a majority of signed authorization cards.  If a union obtains less than a majority but more than 30% of signed authorization cards, there will be an election.

If I signed an authorization card, am I automatically a member of the union? No.  If the union is certified as your bargaining representative, you will have the option of joining the union or being represented by the union.

What’s the difference between being a union “member” and just being “represented”? If you are a member, you have the right to vote on union business.  You can elect union officials, vote on negotiation issues depending on the union, or ratify the collective bargaining agreement.

If you are not a member, then the union will represent you without your voting.

If I signed an authorization card, do I have to vote in favor of the union if an election takes places? No.  If the union collects enough cards, there will be no election and there will be no vote.  Then your signature on the authorization card is your vote for the union.  But if the union does not get enough cards, and there is an election, you may vote your opinion as of the date of the election.  You are not bound to vote for the union on the basis of your signature.

If I signed an authorization card, and would like to revoke it, what should I do? Under current PERB case law, authorization cards cannot be revoked.

How does an election actually take place and what will be my choices on the ballot? If the union collects more than 30% of the signed authorization cards but less than a (50%) majority, PERB will hold an election.  You will have two ballot choices:

“No Representation” – this means you DO NOT WANT unionization The union’s name – this means YOU DO WANT unionization

Whichever option receives a simple majority of the votes cast wins.  If a majority of those voting select “No Representation” you will continue to participate in the University’s personnel programs for non-represented employees.

If there is an election, is there a minimum number of employees that must vote in order to decide the outcome? No.  A majority of the employees voting determines the outcome.  If only 100 people vote, then only 51 need to say yes.  They would end up deciding for every other employee in the group.  This is why you should make sure to vote.

Is membership in the union required to vote in an election? No, if your position is included in the bargaining unit, you may – and should – vote.

Does UC have an opinion about whether or not employees should be unionized? UC does not take any position on whether employees should be represented by unions.  UC supports employees’ rights to determine for themselves whether or not they think unionization is beneficial.  The University believes that its role is to make sure that you have an informed choice as you are faced with these important decisions.

If the union obtains a majority of signed authorization cards, or if a majority of voting employees elects a union as the bargaining representative, will I have to become a member of that union and pay dues? No.  Membership in the union is up to you.  By law you cannot be forced to join the union.  But you will have to pay something to the union for its representation.  These are called “agency fees”.  The amount depends on the union.

If the union is certified by collecting a majority of authorization cards or by winning an election, would I still have to pay a monthly fee to the union even if I do not sign a card or vote against unionization and cannot vote in union decisions? Generally, once a union is certified, all employees represented by that union are subject to paying either dues or fees.

How is the amount of union dues established? The union determines the amount of dues and fees.  The union would be able to inform you about their current dues structure.

Will I have any say in the negotiations? Each union has its own rules about whether all employees or only union members (i.e., dues-payers) can express their views on contract matters.

How can I express my opinion about whether or not I am represented by a union? You have several options.  You as an individual can make your opinions known whenever and wherever you and your coworkers gather for discussions of this type.

You can make a decision to sign an authorization card if you are in favor of having a union as your exclusive representative.  You may also choose not to sign an authorization card if you are not in favor of it.

If there is an election, you can vote for union representation or you can vote against it.

Important Links

Collective Bargaining FAQ

Labor Relations (e-mail)

Personnel Policies for Staff Members

Union-Represented Employees

• Division of Finance and Administration
• Office of Equity, Diversity and Inclusion
• Equal Employment Opportunity and Affirmative Action
• Ethics and Compliance
• UC Merced Policies
• Paperless HR Forms (eDocs)
• HR Org Chart

Additional Links

• Executive Leadership
• University Library
• School of Engineering
• School of Natural Sciences
• School of Social Sciences, Humanities & Arts
• Ernest & Julio Gallo Management Program
• Division of Graduate Education
• Division of Undergraduate Education

Administration

• Office of the Chancellor
• Office of Executive Vice Chancellor and Provost
• Equity, Justice and Inclusive Excellence
• External Relations
• Finance & Administration
• Physical Operations, Planning and Development
• Student Affairs
• Research and Economic Development
• Office of Information Technology

University of California, Merced 5200 North Lake Rd. Merced, CA 95343 Telephone: (209) 228-4400

• © 2024
• About UC Merced
• Privacy/Legal
• Site Feedback
• Accessibility

• Get Email Updates
• Receive Text Alerts
• Find Your Local

Search News

For the media.

For media inquiries, call CWA Communications at 202-434-1168 or email  [email protected] . To read about CWA Members, Leadership or Industries, visit our  About page .

CWA Enters Neutrality Agreement with ZeniMax Studios

(Rockville, MD)— Today the Communications Workers of America (CWA) and Microsoft announced they have extended their ground-breaking labor neutrality agreement to cover workers at Microsoft subsidiary ZeniMax Media Inc, enabling all eligible ZeniMax workers to freely and fairly make a choice about union representation.

“Thousands of our ZeniMax co-workers now have a free and fair path to organize together for better working conditions. When we organized our union under a similar legal agreement the process was clear and management did not try to influence anyone’s decision and the company did not try to interfere with the voting process. There is strength in numbers, and as our numbers grow at ZeniMax, at Microsoft, and in the video game industry, we will gain the respect we deserve and raise the standards of working conditions for everyone across the video gaming industry. When we benefit, the consumer and the company will ultimately benefit with us and help keep this industry stable for current and future workers,” said Page Branson, Senior II QA Tester and member of ZeniMax Workers United-CWA.

Today’s agreement is similar to the legally binding Labor Neutrality Agreement forged between CWA and Microsoft in 2022, which covered Activision Blizzard and went into effect in April of this year, as well as the agreement covering Quality Assurance testers at ZeniMax. Under the agreement, Microsoft will take a neutral approach when covered employees express interest in joining CWA; covered employees will be able to easily exercise their right to communicate with other employees and union representatives about union membership in a way that encourages information sharing and avoids business disruptions; and employees will have access to a streamlined process for choosing whether to join CWA which allows them to maintain confidentiality and privacy of that choice if they wish. The agreement also establishes a dispute resolution and arbitration process if a disagreement arises between CWA and Microsoft under the agreement.

“We continue to put our labor principles into practice by entering into a neutrality agreement with the Communications Workers of America (CWA) on behalf of workers at ZeniMax. We appreciate CWA’s collaboration in reaching this agreement and look forward to continuing our positive labor management relationship," said Amy Pannoni, Vice President and Deputy General Counsel, HR Legal at Microsoft

Quality Assurance workers at Zenimax formed ZeniMax Workers United-CWA last year and have reached a watershed tentative agreement on the use of AI in the workplace as they continue to bargain their first collective contract. CWA represents video game workers at Microsoft, Sega and more organizing for a protected voice on the job.

Press Contact

Search cwa union.

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• We're Hiring!
• Help Center

Exploring The Role Of Trade Unions In The representation Of Worker Interests.

2019, Regent Business School

This literature review, entails the exploration of the various roles that trade unions play in the representation of worker interests, using both international and South African contexts to explore the topic. A discussion on how trade unions originated as representatives of workers interests will initiate the review. Since their inception, there has been a growing popularity for and variety of trade unions especially in the South African context. The significance of this literature review comes to play, as it explores in depth the various roles trade unions play in representing worker interests. Roles such as, vehicle of worker collaboration, worker educator, worker ambassador, collective bargaining negotiator and political affiliate. The literature review, further extends its’ significance, as it explores workers interests in depth and reviews how effective actions used by trade unions are in representing worker interests. A conclusory summary, discussing the significance of the literature reviews’ exploration of the roles trade unions play in representing worker interests is given along with recommendations.

Related Papers

Fred Makgwathana

Monray M Botha

South African labour affairs are in a volatile state. Conflicting rights and interests as well as the balancing of these rights and interests are contributing to this state of affairs. In recent years, the contentious issues of workers' right to use their economic power to put pressure on employers and employers' recourse to lock-out and replacement labour have come under the spotlight again. Prolonged, violent and unprotected strikes have raised the question whether our industrial relations framework should be revisited, and have complicated matters even further. The question whether employers may use replacement labour and have recourse to lock-outs when an impasse exists during wage negotiations is considered in the context of the adversarial collective bargaining framework in South Africa.

Mashele Tlou Rapatsa

This article reflect on the extent to which contract of employment, legislative provisions and collective bargaining assist in protecting employees in the modern labour relations. Contract of employment has traditionally been known as a vital document holistically regulating the symbiotic employer-employee relationship. However, its common law perspective perpetuates inequalities as it fails to accommodate and resolve the inequalities of bargaining power between these parties. It also regards the parties as master (employer) and servant (employee). It is aloof to collective regulation of the employ- ment relationship, meaning that it does not embrace collective bargaining. It was against this backdrop that countries in- cluding South Africa, promulgated laws entrenching protection of workers’ labour rights. Thus, the statutory provisions are a workable framework in protecting employees as rights to associate and bargain freely got entrenched. It is asserted that the basis of strength regarding contract of employment is fading owing to contemporary trends of employment. This includes externalization, casualization and informalization of work. These trends have alienated a huge net of workers from statutory protection. Because, the modern standard model of employment is of inherent variability, it is high time that our legislative authorities, courts and competent tribunals innovate effective responses towards expanding labour legisla- tive boundaries to benefit those in desperate need. This is achievable through strategic interpretation of the Constitution to augment its transformative ideals of advancing social justice.

ECONOMY and SOCIETY (published online 27 sept 2018)

On August 16, 2012, a protracted strike at a platinum mine in Marikana culminated in the killing of 34 mineworkers by local security forces. Some viewed this tragedy through the lens of South Africa's apartheid past, recalling such events as the Sharpeville massacre of 1960. Others saw this episode as the latest cycle of angry protest and violent repression stemming from heightened inequality and poverty under global capitalism. This article explores a set of institutional factors that occupy the middle ground between these two narratives about the massacre at Marikana. At the national level, despite progressive labour regulations and a long-standing alliance between the leading trade union (COSATU) and the ruling African National Congress, institutional channels for social dialogue and collective bargaining were less effective than expected given COSATU's inability to criticize policies focused on business-led growth at the expense of the social protection of workers. At the sectoral level, gigantic platinum companies faced with falling commodity prices sought to limit losses by planning retrenchments and limiting wage increases, triggering repeated and sometimes violent wildcat strikes, especially when workers' grievances were set aside by local representatives of the COSATU-affiliated National Union of Mineworkers. The argument may be seen as a labour-focused variant of Huntington's "gap hypothesis": workers' militancy has grown as existing institutional frameworks for ensuring labour peace have failed to channel the frustrations of workers most in need of social protection.

Ciaran Cross , Daniel Blackburn

An essential resource for trade unionists, labour rights organisations, NGOs, researchers, governments and policy makers, and for anyone interested in the history of labour unions, the right to organise, freedom of association, and worker's organisations around the world. The new edition contains 198 country profiles, with: • an up-to-date directory database of all national trade union centres and major sectoral and industrial unions • a political and economic history of the country • an overview of current and historical trends in trade unionism and industrial relations Each country profile in the encyclopaedia is a labour movement fact file and describes the political, economic and legal context in which trade unions operate, outlines key facets of labour law, and looks at the historical development of unions up to the present day. The global compendium contains data on thousands of unions. Trade Unions of the World also contains profiles on all major international trade union organisations. To order, visit ICTUR's website: http://www.ictur.org/TUW.html Published June 2016. 678pp, softcover. © The International Centre for Trade Union Rights 2016 ISBN: 978-0-9933556-0-8

OPSOMMING Die bevordering van ordelike kollektiewe bedinging en effektiewe beslegting van geskille, die dinamiese arbeidsmark en die magte van die Arbeidshof Die tekort aan vertroue tussen bedingspartye, konflik tussen vakbonde asook on-beskermde, gewelddadige en langdurige stakings is algemene verskynsel en kenmerk van die onlangse geskiedenis in die arbeidsmark in Suid-Afrika. Die optrede van vak-bonde tydens kollektiewe bedinging, die meerderheidsbeginsel en inter-vakbond konflik is veral onder die vergrootglas. Die huidige stand van sake in die arbeidsmark het dit dus genoodsaak om ondersoek te loods ten aansien van hoe die Arbeidshof genader kan word in gevalle waar partye hulself op maniere gedra wat buite die reguleringsraamwerk van kollektiewe bedinging gaan. Beginsels soos funksionaliteit en proporsionaliteit asook verskeie remedies en uitbreiding van magte van die Arbeidshof word in die lig hiervan ook heroorweeg. 1 SETTING THE SCENE: BRIEF OVERVIEW OF THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING FRAMEWORK " Non-strikers were harassed and intimidated. Employees were visited at their homes by persons who threatened them with physical harm and death. Relatives of non-strikers were also visited in this manner and informed of what would be done to the family members working at the bakery. One female non-striker was dragged from her home at night and assaulted with pangas and sjamboks. The vehicle of a non-striker was set alight and destroyed. Shots were fired on this occasion. A neighbour of the non-striker was able to identify the perpetrators. He was subsequently shot and killed near his home. Houses were petrol bombed. Threats to kill senior management were made. Some employees and the senior management group were provided with security guards. A shot was fired through the security guard's vehicle parked outside the home of Lavery, the regional manager. Delivery vans were held up and the daily takings were robbed as were personal possessions

Stefan Van Eck , S. Van Eck

This note explores the powers of the Labour Court as envisaged in the Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995 (LRA), where a protected strike disintegrates into violent riotous conduct. The legal status of protected strikes raises important questions of law, namely: whether the Labour Court has the authority to alter the legal status of a strike; the autonomy of collective bargaining; and the legal test which the Labour Court should apply when intervening. The court in National Union of Food Beverage Wine Spirits & Allied Workers v Universal Product Network (Pty) Ltd 2016 37 ILJ 476 (LC) dealt with this precise problem. There can be no doubt that South Africa is plagued by widespread strike violence which often occur during protected strikes. However, this contribution poses the question whether the Labour Court has not overstepped its mandated jurisdiction and it questions whether such alterations of the status of strikes would have a positive effect on the institution of collective bargaining. Keywords Authority of the labour court; collective bargaining; powers of the labour court; protected strikes; unprotected strikes; violent strikes.

ituc-csi.org

Kea Tijdens

Impact of Labour Unions of the South African Mining Industry

Cornelius W van der Westhuizen

The mining industry has played a significant role in the development of South Africa by being a top employer and foreign exchange earner. With the large workforce, labour unions have also emerged as an important factor that moderates how people, companies, and the government interact. In recent years, union-led mass actions have been on the limelight due to their violent nature that endangers human life, the reputation of the stakeholders, and compromises the economic contributions of the mining sector. The intent of this research was to investigate the impact of the labour unions on the mining industry in South Africa. The research was accomplished through a qualitative research approach, which involved a critical review of the literature and thematic analysis. By drawing from secondary sources, the research is able to avoid the tedious, time consuming, and expensive process of gathering primary data. The objectives of this research are reflected in the findings made. The research established that labour unions have an imperative role in dealing with issues concerning employee welfare. This involves identifying the challenges, communicating, and bargaining for better solutions to be implemented. The structure of the unions facilitates the interaction of the government, companies, workers, and the union in addressing the inherent matters that affect performance in the mining industry. Collective bargaining is the primary mode of negotiation employed, but in some cases, violation of agreement leads to industrial actions such as strikes, which are detrimental to all parties. To improve the role of labour unions in the mining sector, there is a need to address the conflicts of interest among the different parties to ensure that there is a consensus in how collective bargaining is achieved.

RELATED PAPERS

Pamhidzai Bamu

SA Merc Law Journal

Steven Friedman , Sharon Groenmeyer

albano troco

Tyanai Masiya

Roger Welch

ECONOMIC AND INDUSTRIAL DEMOCRACY (journal)

Mncedzi V Ngomane

Murray Leibbrandt

Ross Harvey

Wessel P Visser

Legend L . E . Asuelime , Adekunle Iwalesin

Mankgong Nkuna

The Economic and Labour Relations Review

Mondli Hlatshwayo

Haroon Bhorat

Industrial Relations Journal

Geoffrey Wood

Akua O Britwum

Melisa R. Serrano

Naila Kabeer

Regional Integration in …

Mmatlou Kalaba

Zinat Ismail

Akua O Britwum , sue ledwith

Jack Chennells

Doreen Atkinson

Mbulelo Mandlana

Jeanette Clarke

Advances in Industrial and Labor Relations Volume 23

Johann Maree

Crispen Chinguno

SSRN Electronic Journal

Jan Theron , Margareet Visser

Lucien van der Walt , Nicole Ulrich

Melanie Samson

Trevor Ngwane

RELATED TOPICS

•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024

A Free Syndication Service

Republishing terms and guidelines for realclearwire.

RealClearWire offers investigations, commentary, analysis, and RealClear polling averages for free republication. Republishers are not required to sign a contract or license agreement as long as they follow the terms and guidelines outlined here. For general inquires, please contact [email protected] .

• Select Content — Only articles that appear on RealClearWire.com or the RealClearWire email newsletter are available to republish. Articles from other websites linked to by RealClear are NOT available for republication, unless specified otherwise.
• Attribution — RealClearWire offers content free of charge and requires all republishers to attribute the content to the bylined author and RealClearWire. Attribution to RealClearWire in the byline (e.g. “Author Name, RealClearWire”) or at the top of the article is preferred, however attribution at the end of the article is acceptable. For example, “This article was made available via RealClearWire.” Linking back is not required.
• Photos and Images — Only images that accompany articles on RealClearWire.com come from the public domain and are available to republish along with the article text. Photos that appear on other RealClear websites such as RealClearPolitics.com are NOT available to republish. Republishers can also use their own properly licensed photos and images.
• Editing Prohibited — Editing or altering content is prohibited. Links in article text should be retained when republishing to the web. To request an abridgement, please contact the Director of Syndication at [email protected] .
• Communication — The first time you republish content from RealClearWire, please email the link or clip of the republished content to the Director of Syndication at [email protected] . Our team enjoys being in communication with republishers.
• Contact Info — All republishers must have publicly listed contact information.
• Translation — To inquire about translating an article, please contact the Director of Syndication at [email protected] .
• Ads, Donations and Subscriptions — Republishers are prohibited from selling RealClear content, but running ads alongside republished content is allowed. Stating or implying that RealClear has any affiliation with ad content is prohibited. Republishers are prohibited from stating or implying that a donation, subscription, or payment to your publication will in any way benefit RealClearFoundation nor RealClear Media Group.
• Contracts and Licensing — Republishers are not required to sign a contract or license agreement as long as they follow the guidelines outlined here.
• Automated Republishing — RealClearWire is self-serve platform — copying and pasting content to your content management system is encouraged. If your publication is interested in automated republishing, RealClear can provide a custom RSS feed. Please contact [email protected] to inquire about automated republishing.

For general inquires please contact [email protected] .

SEIU Brings Progressive Union Politics to Philly

• Video: Global Warming Lorem Ipsum Dolor Sit ...
• Article: Global Warming Lorem Ipsum Dolor Sit ...
• Entry: Global Warming Lorem Ipsum Dolor Sit ...

The Service Employees International Union’s 2024 convention might have provided the infamously progressive union with an opportunity to refocus its efforts on workplace representation over divisive, ideologically driven politics. No such luck: the election of April Verrett as SEIU president, a set of resolutions addressing numerous hot-button issues, and a campaign appearance by Vice President Kamala Harris all made clear that SEIU remains committed to its hard-left agenda.

Delegates from SEIU locals across the nation gathered in Philadelphia on May 20 for a three-day event to establish priorities that will guide union operations over the next four years.

The first order of business was the election of Verrett , SEIU’s former secretary-treasurer, to succeed outgoing president Mary Kay Henry.

Whether SEIU rank and file were unaware of or indifferent to Verrett’s questionable record is unclear. While serving as president of SEIU Local 2015, Verrett faced one of the largest union staff labor strikes in American history after accusations of union-busting, surveillance, assault, and intimidation.

Verrett’s dedication to SEIU’s progressive politics, however, is unmatched. In the words of the union’s new leader, America’s “ugly, insidious, anti-black racist structures” inform her decision to make “eradicating structural and anti-black racism a core strategy ” of union operations.

Vice President Harris apparently approves. In her address to the union convention, Harris fondly described Verrett as “a phenomenal woman and a powerful fighter for justice and fairness,” ignoring past accusations against the SEIU president.

Harris, who has made frequent trips to Pennsylvania in an effort to charm Keystone State voters, appealed to union members. “Our nation needs you, SEIU, to organize, to mobilize and to make your voices heard” during the upcoming presidential election, she said.

SEIU, which will spend $200 million in support of the Biden-Harris ticket between now and November to build “political power by mobilizing a cross-racial, cross-movement coalition of working-class voters,” is fully on board.

But the union’s resolve to fulfill Harris’ request for votes only scratches the surface of its four-year plan, laid out in resolutions passed by delegates during the convention.

SEIU’s 2024 Convention Core Resolution , for example, asserts that “unchecked corporate control and structural racism have built a North America for wealthy white people at the cost of all others.”

“Racial and economic justice,” therefore, “must be central to the work of our union,” the resolution maintains.

Joining a swath of labor unions in support of pro-Palestinian protests across America’s college campuses, SEIU’s Resolution on the War in Gaza expressed its opposition to “violent attacks” and “the use of severe force” against out-of-control student demonstrators, plus an end to taxpayer support for Israel.

In addition, Constitutional Amendment 307 eliminates “explicit references to binary genders” throughout union documents and communications, replacing all usages of “men and women” with “people” and trading both “his and her” for “their.”

For a union committed to “higher pay, better benefits, job security and a retirement we can count on,” SEIU’s guiding priorities for President Verrett’s inaugural term have remarkably little to do with the workplace concerns of members.

As SEIU continues to embrace the role of a progressive interest group over protector of workplace rights, union members are taking note. More than 200,000 have turned their backs on SEIU since the Supreme Court’s 2018 decision in Janus v. AFSCME affirmed the right of government workers to forgo union membership without losing their jobs.

In Pennsylvania, the convention’s host state, SEIU’s losses are typical. SEIU Healthcare Pennsylvania , the state’s largest SEIU local, has shed thousands of members since the Janus decision.

SEIU continues to put progressive ideology over the wellbeing of its rank and file. Barring a change of course, the union’s insatiable thirst for political power will eventually lead to its demise.

Hunter Tower is the East Coast director of the Freedom Foundation.

Include the latest polling data on your website using the embed codes below. The widgets contain a Google Ad frame from which RealClear derives revenue.

You can view a full list of our available widgets here.

• WEATHER ALERT Heat Advisory Full Story
• WEATHER ALERT Excessive Heat Warning Full Story
• WEATHER ALERT Excessive Heat Watch Full Story

2024 Presidential Election

Biden campaign hq staffers finalize union agreement, 1st presidential reelection campaign to do so.

Staffers at President Joe Biden's campaign headquarters in Delaware finalized a union contract last week after collective bargaining negotiations, making Biden the first incumbent to run for reelection with a unionized workforce and underscoring his pro-labor outlook.

The video is from a previous report.

Officials said the new contract covers wages, time off and severance, among other issues. The unionization effort is affiliated with the Campaign Workers Guild, a non-partisan labor union founded in 2017 to represent workers on campaigns and political committees.

"We are proud of the professional and collaborative process that has resulted in a strong, fair and equitable agreement between the Biden-Harris staff and the Campaign Workers Guild," read a joint statement between the Guild and Biden's campaign issued first to CNN. "Both of our organizations believe standing up for workers' rights and the dignity of work is paramount, and we hope this process can be a powerful example for how future campaigns and unions can work together to achieve an agreement everyone can be proud of."

The agreement went into effect on May 23, according to an official, and covers nearly 100 campaign workers. The number of unionized staffers is growing by the week as the campaign increases its payrolls ahead of November's election.

Included in the contract are severance and a continuation of benefits after the November 5 election, increased time off for workers, monthly child care reimbursement, disciplinary protections, caps on hours worked, and health and safety protections.

Field organizers on Biden's previous campaign unionized in May 2020. They worked with Teamsters Local 238 to secure a $15 minimum wage, overtime pay if working more than 40 hours in a week and a six-day work week.

Presidential campaign work can be notoriously grueling, with long hours and low pay exchanged for the experience and the career benefit of working in American politics at the highest level.

Democratic campaigns and committees have embraced moves by their staff to unionize in recent years as they look to live up to the pro-labor platforms they pitch to voters. It comes as the president has sought to strengthen his union bona fides as he prepares to face off against former President Donald Trump, who is also making a play for union voters heading into November.

Trump's campaign staff is not represented by a union.

"President Biden pledged to be the most pro-union president ever, and he's followed through on that promise at every turn - with today's important news as just the latest example," Biden's campaign manager Julie Chavez Rodriguez said. "Joe Biden has spent his career standing with workers, and just as they did four years ago, he's proud that his staff has come together and successfully unionized."

Biden has sought to amplify his pro-labor credentials, naming himself the "most pro-union president in history" and heavily courting powerful unions to endorse his presidential bid. He's been endorsed by the United Autoworkers and the Building Trades Unions. Both he and Trump have also met with the Teamsters union to court the group's support.

The-CNN-Wire & 2024 Cable News Network, Inc., a Warner Bros. Discovery Company. All rights reserved.

Related Topics

• 2024 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

Half of Americans think Trump's guilty verdict was correct: POLL

Republicans join Trump's attacks on justice system after verdict

Trump says appeal is ahead after hush money trial conviction

Biden says Trump verdict shows no one is above the law

Top stories.

LAX drug smuggling hub of the world, sources say

Actor Jonathan Tucker rushes in to help family during LA home invasion

• 2 hours ago

Temecula residents to vote on recall of school board president

Cyndi Lauper cements her place in Hollywood history

• 5 minutes ago

Fire hydrant thefts on the rise in Los Angeles County

Yosemite National Park waterfalls will peak soon

• 3 hours ago

Clerical error keeps viral Michigan man's license suspended

Biden takes new immigration actions restricting asylum. What to know

45,000+ students realised their study abroad dream with us. Take the first step today

Meet top uk universities from the comfort of your home, here’s your new year gift, one app for all your, study abroad needs, start your journey, track your progress, grow with the community and so much more.

Verification Code

An OTP has been sent to your registered mobile no. Please verify

Thanks for your comment !

Our team will review it before it's shown to our readers.

• UPSC Prep /

Special Provisions for SC and ST in the Indian Constitution

• Updated on  
• Jun 4, 2024

The Indian Constitution does not provide a specific list of castes or tribes categorized as Scheduled Castes (SCs) or Scheduled Tribes (STs) . Instead, it grants the President of India the authority to identify these communities within each State and Union territory. Moreover, this results in variations in the SC and ST listings across different regions. In addition, for States, the President issues a report after consulting the State Governor . However, only the Indian Parliament can include or exclude castes or tribes from this list, not a presidential report. Furthermore, the President has given orders specifying SCs and STs in different States and Union territories, and these orders can be amended by Parliament. Read on to learn more about the 4 Special Provisions for SC and ST in the Indian Constitution.

Table of Contents

• 1 1. Representation for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in Legislatures
• 2 2. Considering Claims of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in Public Service Appointments
• 3 3. Two National Commissions Protect Marginalized Groups in India
• 4 4. The Union’s Role in Scheduled Areas and Tribal Welfare

1. Representation for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in Legislatures

The Indian Constitution guarantees representation for Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs) in the Lok Sabha and State Legislative Assemblies . 

• A specific number of seats are reserved for these communities based on their population ratios. 
• This reservation policy was initially implemented for ten years, ending in 1960. 
• However, it has been continuously extended ever since, usually in ten-year increments. 
• The most recent extension by the 104th Amendment Act of 2019, guarantees continued reservation for SCs and STs until 2030.

Also Read: 15 Constitutional Provisions for Judicial Review in India

2. Considering Claims of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in Public Service Appointments

The Indian Constitution directs the claims of Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs) to be given due consideration: 

• This guarantees their representation in public services at the Central and State levels, while still maintaining administrative efficiency.
• However, the 82nd Amendment Act of 2000 allows for additional measures to support SCs and STs. 
• Moreover, these may include relaxation of qualifying marks in exams or adjustments in evaluation standards. 
• In addition, the Amendment also allows reservations for promotions within the public services.

Also Read: All the Emergency Provisions in the Indian Constitution

3. Two National Commissions Protect Marginalized Groups in India

The Indian Constitution orders the establishment of two National Commissions to protect the interests of historically disadvantaged communities.

• Moreover, it reports its findings and recommendations to the President of India.
• Additionally, it reports to the President and guarantees compliance with constitutional protection for ST communities.

Earlier, a single commission addressed the needs of both SCs and STs. However, the 89th Amendment recognized the particular requirements of these groups and established separate commissions. The President submits the reports of both Commissions to Parliament, along with a memorandum detailing actions taken based on their recommendations.

Also Read: What is Doctrine of Severability?

4. The Union’s Role in Scheduled Areas and Tribal Welfare

The Indian Constitution gives the central government, or the Union, specific powers regarding Scheduled Areas and Scheduled Tribes:

• Consequently, this can be done at any time, but it is compulsory every 10 years after the Constitution’s commencement.
• Moreover, four decades later, a second commission led by Dilip Singh Bhuria was formed in 2002, thus reporting its findings in 2004.
• These directives can focus on formulating and implementing programs specifically designed to improve the welfare of STs within each State.

Related Blogs

Lastly, we hope you liked our blog and gained an understanding of the Special Provisions for SC and ST in the Indian Constitution. Moreover, you may even read more blogs and empower yourself with knowledge regarding Civics and Polity!

Santana Daphne Antunis

A researcher, writer and traveller at heart. Talk to me about any topic under the sun, especially sustainability, art, music and photography.

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Contact no. *

Connect With Us

45,000+ students realised their study abroad dream with us. Take the first step today.

Resend OTP in

Need help with?

Study abroad.

UK, Canada, US & More

IELTS, GRE, GMAT & More

Scholarship, Loans & Forex

Country Preference

New Zealand

Which English test are you planning to take?

Which academic test are you planning to take.

Not Sure yet

When are you planning to take the exam?

Already booked my exam slot

Within 2 Months

Want to learn about the test

Which Degree do you wish to pursue?

When do you want to start studying abroad.

January 2024

September 2024

What is your budget to study abroad?

How would you describe this article ?

Please rate this article

We would like to hear more.

Have something on your mind?

Make your study abroad dream a reality in January 2022 with

India's Biggest Virtual University Fair

Commission welcomes agreement on stronger global health security rules

The Commission welcomes the agreement on the revised International Health Regulations, which was reached at the World Health Assembly in Geneva today.

The Commission welcomes the agreement on the revised International Health Regulations, which was reached at the World Health Assembly in Geneva today. The World Health Assembly brought together over 190 countries, including all EU Member States, who together adopted an ambitious package of amendments to the International Health Regulations, following two years of intense negotiations. By strengthening the rules, the aim is to improve the management of public health emergencies of international concern and to better protect all citizens from serious cross-border health threats – a key priority of the EU's Global Health Strategy.

The International Health Regulations are a legally-binding set of international rules to manage global health crises, which was agreed almost 20 years ago. The COVID-19 pandemic exposed the urgent need to reinforce this framework for modern realities. Today's agreement marks a significant advance in how countries around the world work together to prepare for and respond to major health threats. The revised IHR will help countries to prevent and respond to acute public health risks and improve the global health security architecture. 

The Commission further welcomes the agreement by the World Health Assembly to continue negotiations on the Pandemic Agreement with the goal of reaching consensus by the next World Health Assembly in May 2025.  The EU remains firmly committed to these negotiations, which will build on the tangible progress made over the last two years, and will continue working with all partners and stakeholders with a view to creating a stronger, more resilient and more equitable global health architecture for the future, where decisions are driven by states which are party to the agreement.

I warmly welcome today’s agreement, which delivers on one of the key goals in the EU’s Global Health Strategy and significantly strengthens the external dimension of the European Health Union. This is a signal that international solidarity and collaboration on important health issues remains strong. As we have all seen over the past years, the major health challenges that we face today do not respect borders, and multilateral solutions are the only way to confront them. We must build on today’s successful outcome and continue to strengthen the global health architecture, in order to protect peoples worldwide.

Stella Kyriakides, Commissioner for Health and Food Safety

Share this page

‘Fat Leonard,’ back in U.S. after escape, finally has an attorney and sentencing date

Since his january return to federal custody in san diego, francis had repeatedly sought delays to sort out his legal representation.

• Show more sharing options
• Copy Link URL Copied!

The Malaysian defense contractor Leonard Glenn Francis, the man known as “Fat Leonard” at the center of the worst bribery and corruption scandal in U.S. Navy history, finally has a new sentencing date — Nov. 5.

That happens to coincide with Election Day, when U.S. voters will decide between President Joe Biden and former President Donald Trump, among other federal, state and local races.

U.S. District Judge Janis Sammartino set the new sentencing date during a brief hearing Friday in San Diego federal court. “We need to resolve this this year,” she said.

Francis was initially set to be sentenced in September 2022, but he fled the country just weeks before . He was returned to U.S. custody in December as part of a prisoner swap after spending about 15 months in a Venezuelan prison.

Francis was first arrested in September 2013. He pleaded guilty to a bribery conspiracy in 2015, admitting that he swindled the Navy out of at least $35 million. But he avoided sentencing for years while cooperating with the government against many of his co-conspirators, most of whom were Navy officers who he’d bribed with fancy meals, luxury hotel rooms, prostitutes and other gifts. In exchange, the officers leaked him ship schedules and other information that gave him a competitive advantage and allowed him to gouge the Navy for the security, supplies and other services he offered at ports across Southeast Asia.

While cooperating with federal prosecutors, Francis was diagnosed with renal cancer, and Sammartino released him from custody on a medical furlough. Under unusual circumstances, he was allowed to stay out of federal lock-up for years even as his health seemingly improved. He remained on house arrest, but he paid for his own security and eventually moved into a mansion in the Torrey Highlands neighborhood.

It was from that home that Francis made his escape the Sunday before Labor Day in 2022, cutting off his GPS tracker, crossing the border into Tijuana and eventually ending up in Venezuela, where he was captured 16 days after absconding .

Despite ‘clean bill of health’ for some medical issues, ‘Fat Leonard’ stayed out of jail

The statement in late 2020 by one doctor focuses attention on the long-secret details of the unorthodox medical furlough Leonard Francis lived under since 2018.

Sept. 18, 2022

Since his return to federal custody in San Diego, Francis has made several appearances back in Sammartino’s courtroom to discuss sentencing dates. Each time, he asked for additional time to find a new attorney . Sammartino previously allowed the attorneys who represented him at the time of his escape to withdraw from the case.

Representing him Friday was Doug Sprague, one of his original attorneys who had not been actively representing Francis for at least five years.

Sprague asked Sammartino on Friday to wait 30 more days to set a sentencing hearing. He said his client was dealing with the recent death of his mother and that Francis is again suffering from serious health issues.

Prosecutors had asked for a sentencing date in September. Sammartino set the November date without granting Sprague’s request for the 30-day delay.

There could be more twists before sentencing. The government’s legal case against many of the Navy officers has hit a stumbling block in the last year or so because of prosecutorial misconduct . That led to four officers who were convicted at trial having those convictions vacated in favor of misdemeanor plea deals last year. A few weeks ago, four defendants who had pleaded guilty to felonies had those charges dismissed in favor of misdemeanor plea agreements while a fifth had his case entirely dismissed.

Prosecutors have said they’ll review the cases of other defendants who were sentenced on felony charges to see if they should also be eligible for some kind of legal relief. Assistant U.S. Attorney Fred Sheppard indicated Friday that at least one defendant is currently in that process but did not say who.

The latest news, as soon as it breaks.

Get our email alerts straight to your inbox.

You may occasionally receive promotional content from the San Diego Union-Tribune.

More from this Author

Trial for allegedly corrupt CBP officer opens with talk of Tijuana strip club, drug-laden cars

June 4, 2024

Navy judge sentences sailor convicted of attempted espionage to 18 years in military prison

May 31, 2024

Public Safety

San Diego Congress members seek more answers about Border Patrol units that operated without oversight

May 29, 2024

Investigative reporter takes deep look into ‘Fat Leonard’ scandal. ‘The skeletons are in this book.’

May 26, 2024

San Diego Border Patrol agent sentenced for helping move drugs, migrants across border while on duty

May 24, 2024

‘Embarrassment to the government’: Judge slams prosecutors for unraveling of ‘Fat Leonard’ case

May 21, 2024

More in this section

Fired Poway Unified superintendent asks judge to reinstate her, block disclosure of why she was fired

A Union-Tribune record request helped prompt a court petition she filed last week that for the first time publicly details Marian Kim Phelps’ side of the story

Nephew of late Charger Seau charged with murder in connection with fatal fentanyl overdose

Micah Seau, 31, nephew of Junior Seau who also played football for the Aztecs, is accused of selling deadly drugs to a friend last year

Yoga teachers sue over San Diego’s beach crackdown

Steve Hubbard and Amy Baack say they’ve been holding beach yoga classes for years without any problems

Legendary attorney Milt Silverman, who defended some of San Diego’s most notorious cases, dies

Silverman’s courtroom successes included the biggest cases in the region — among them the murder acquittal of Sagon Penn, a Black teenager who shot and killed a White police officer in the 1980s

June 1, 2024

Four arrests made in smash-and-grab organized thefts targeting jewelry stores across San Diego County

The year-long spree hit stores across the county and elsewhere in the state, resulting in $1.5 million in losses

Life in prison for man who killed father-in law and brother-in-law in Valley Center

Christian Bobila, 46, was convicted by a Vista Superior Court jury earlier this year for the June 26, 2022, killings of Vicente Reyes, 79, and Vincent Reyes, 45