Ua Local 342 Collective Bargaining Agreement

C. Overaa (Overaa) is a general contractor that is primarily involved in the construction of water and sanitation facilities. Overaa is a signatory to a collective agreement with several employers (the agreement) with Steamfitters Local 342, which represents plumber and pipefitter overaas. In reviewing the decisions of the NLRB, our task is to determine whether the Board`s decision is supported by substantial evidence of the entire proposed protocol. The problem with the House`s decision in this case is to determine what the House has actually decided. The Supreme Court clarified that all so-called “maintenance of work” agreements, such as the union reference clause in the agreement, do not violate the National Labor Relations Act. “The touchstone [to determine whether a refusal to manipulate is contrary to the law], whether the agreement or its maintenance is directed to the employer`s labour relations vis-à-vis its own employees.” National Woodwork Manufacturers` Ass`n v. NLRB, 386 U.S. 612, 645, 87 S.Ct.

1250, 1269, 18 L.Ed.2d 357 (1967). If the purpose of a trade union clause is directed at the employer, it is a main activity that is not prohibited either by the provisions of page 8 B) (4) or by the letter 8 e). As Wright J.A. noted in a statement that predicted the decision of the Supreme Court of National Woodwork: This case is before the court on the plaintiffs` application for preferential award and legal fees against the defendants Earthsafe Systems, Inc. d/b/a Pacific Earthsafe Systems, Inc. (“Earthsafe”) and William John Edwards, Jr. (together “defence counsel”). After reviewing and reviewing the documents submitted to the Court, the Court considers that the case has no deliberation in accordance with local civil rule 7-1 (b). The court of HEREBY GRANTS Request for judgment by default. The Master Labor Agreement between Local 342 and Northern California Mechanical Contractors Association and Industrial Contractors UMIC, Inc. (“Collective Agreement”). The board`s opinion contains two themes.

On the one hand, the union had claimed not only the cutting and welding work it had done in the past, but also all the work related to the manufacture of the tube, which, in this particular context, included the additional tasks of coating, recuit and hydrostatic testing. The room found that this work was not very demanding. This conclusion was supported by substantial evidence. Also questioning whether this work, regardless of the competent bargaining unit, exceeded all the historical justifications authorized by the doctrine of labour conservation, a House order was fully justified. It is on this basis that I would like to confirm. In support of their application, the applicants provided a copy of the collective agreement between Local 342 and Earthsafe, in which Earthsafe agreed to make monthly contributions to complainants covering ancillary benefits on behalf of insured workers.


Comments are closed.