Bargain Preclude Unilateral Wage Case Study
Does the Duty to Bargain Preclude Unilateral Wage Increases?
Summary
This case study poses the question, “Does the duty to bargain preclude unilateral wage increases?” Before this question can be answered, lets discuss the background of the events. Winn-Dixie is a chain of retail grocery stores that can be found in multiple states. The United Food and Commercial Workers union represents the employees of the company. These employees work in receiving, shipping and processing of food products in the warehouse located in Jacksonville, Florida. In this case, there is a decentralized bargaining structure because it only involves the employees from the warehouse. Although the collective bargaining agreement expired in February, both the …show more content…
It was clear that Winn-Dixie had complied with its duty to bargain even though they implemented a unilateral change in wages. According to the National Labor Relations Act, both parties were obliged to collectively bargain, however, the obligation does not, compel either party to agree to a proposal by the other, nor does it require either party to make a concession to the other (Basic Guide to the National Labor Relations Act, 1997, p. 6). The company is not found in violation of sections 8(a)(5) and (1) of the National Labor Relations Act. They gave the union multiple proposals and informed the union that due to competitive wages they were implementing the wage increase. This is also to reduce the chance of employees fleeing. The union never responded with any counterproposals. In contrast to this ruling, the case of, Winn Dixie Stores Inc v. National Labor Relations Board, 1978, The ALJ found them in violation of section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act because it amounted to a unilateral increase in wages without giving notice to the union and without giving the union a meaningful opportunity to make
Summary
This case study poses the question, “Does the duty to bargain preclude unilateral wage increases?” Before this question can be answered, lets discuss the background of the events. Winn-Dixie is a chain of retail grocery stores that can be found in multiple states. The United Food and Commercial Workers union represents the employees of the company. These employees work in receiving, shipping and processing of food products in the warehouse located in Jacksonville, Florida. In this case, there is a decentralized bargaining structure because it only involves the employees from the warehouse. Although the collective bargaining agreement expired in February, both the …show more content…
It was clear that Winn-Dixie had complied with its duty to bargain even though they implemented a unilateral change in wages. According to the National Labor Relations Act, both parties were obliged to collectively bargain, however, the obligation does not, compel either party to agree to a proposal by the other, nor does it require either party to make a concession to the other (Basic Guide to the National Labor Relations Act, 1997, p. 6). The company is not found in violation of sections 8(a)(5) and (1) of the National Labor Relations Act. They gave the union multiple proposals and informed the union that due to competitive wages they were implementing the wage increase. This is also to reduce the chance of employees fleeing. The union never responded with any counterproposals. In contrast to this ruling, the case of, Winn Dixie Stores Inc v. National Labor Relations Board, 1978, The ALJ found them in violation of section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act because it amounted to a unilateral increase in wages without giving notice to the union and without giving the union a meaningful opportunity to make