Download
1 / 3
30 likes | 163 Views
Fall River. Bargaining obligation incurred by successor when there is a “rebuttable presumption” of union majority status Successorship determined by “substantial continuity” doctrine same business, jobs, working conditions, production process, products, customers totality of circumstances
E N D
Fall River • Bargaining obligation incurred by successor when there is a “rebuttable presumption” of union majority status • Successorship determined by “substantial continuity” doctrine • same business, jobs, working conditions, production process, products, customers • totality of circumstances • ee perspective • Bargaining obligation incurred if predecessor’s ees a majority of “substantial and representative complement” of successor’s ees
Fall River (cont.) • accepts “continuing bargaining demand” rule • once union makes a bargaining demand, it is maintained, even if it is initially made before “substantial and representative complement” hired
Dissent • No successorship; no “substantial continuity” • Employer Perspective • Break in continuity • 6 months between Sterlingwale demise and Fall River establishment • 9 months between Sterlingwale demise and Fall River production startup • No business relationship between Sterlingwale and Fall River • Attraction of customers on its own and not due to Sterlingwale • Employee Perspective • Sterlingwale ees expected no further empl. with co. • Expiration of CBA • Fall River advertised for new workers • No continuity of workforce to presume maj. status
