Anti-union animus is a concept that has serious consequences in labor relations concerning the employee-employer connection. Read this article to know more about anti-union animus and other related terms.
Anti-union animus in labour law: If a worker is disciplined in terms of attendance and quality of service and still there emerges a proclamation from his side that the hirer has taken action against him for union animus behaviour under Section 8(a)(3) of the ILO, the proof needs to produced to back up such claims. The proof can either be a direct source of evidence, for example, straightforward testimonials made by the top management or a supervisor regarding employee actions that prove each function was an effect of the union actions. This occurrence is very rare except in organisations where there are chances of interference quite often based on the prevailing circumstances.
The Board tries to put emphasis on the fact that a union animus should serve as a motivating tool when the employee’s actions are detrimentally affecting the course of commercial operations, otherwise the employer is not held responsible for breaching the law.
Different Terms Used in Labor Law
Abeyance: This is a specific situation of uncertainty. To be held in abeyance means to have been subjected to a pending motion, for example, grievance, beyond the time constraints until some arbitrary future period when the case can be addressed for further processing.
Affidavit: This document is a printed or handwritten statement or legal announcement of facts delivered voluntarily and guaranteed by the affirmation of the conscious adult individual issuing it.
Alter ego: This term is actually derived from a Latin dictionary that expresses the meaning: ‘another self’. A company tagged as alter ego may crop up when the same set of proprietors or managers of one organisation cease operations and rebrand their venture with a completely different business identity. But in general means, it is eventually the same business.
At-will: This phrase or term under common legislature denotes the apparent relationship between an employee and the employer that tends to prevail outside the formal agreement or additional agreements proclaiming job security. At-will employees can get terminated whenever the employer feels that the firm’s operations do not require their contribution anymore. For executing their thoughtful action the employer is not liable to provide any valid reason at all. Just cause is not applicable in these scenarios.
Bargaining Unit: This is a core committee of workers who represent a group of union members after that group comes to power after winning a representation election. This core team gets preference in the initial stages when the union proposes to launch their campaigns one after another. The State Labor Board may feel the requirement to scrutinize and arrange a hearing to evaluate the coverage schemes according to job classifications of a unit in the cases of employer disapprovals.
Boycotting: This includes disagreement to deal with, purchase, provide or manage the assets of an enterprise for exercising constant pressure on the employer at the times of labor arguments. Boycotts can be either primary or secondary. In secondary boycott sessions the employee unjustifiably demands their company to selectively discard the trading opportunities with specific organisations; this action is illegal and may lead to criminal charges against the union members.
Bumping: It is a contractual right that empowers the workers assigned for layoff to be approved of displacing relatively fewer older workers in various job profiles for which the former party is sufficiently qualified.
Coercion: Financial or other types of pressure formulated by an employer in order to check the free practice of workers exercising their fundamental right to self-organise and conduct collective bargaining sessions. This also includes intimidation from fellow employees or other union members to enforce bonding with the trade union.
Consent Agreement: This jots down the terms between an employer and the employees’ union as per the NLRB form 651 specifications. This agreement is reached by both parties to enhance the working conditions along with professional perks associated with performance indicators.
Contingency fee: This is a formal arrangement planned in association with an attorney who agrees not to demand any charges or retainer; he will receive payment for delegated operations directly from the member or client only when an award or case is won.
Decertification: This term signifies the redemption by the labor committee of an employees’ union’s position as an executive body following a consequence of loss in a general election arranged through workers’ petition.
Due process: The constitutional oath that no member or working professional shall be stripped of his liberty, lifestyle or property without sufficient legal evidence. In a nutshell, there must be room for objective and fair hearing sessions or trials before the jury as per the state jurisdiction and this is applicable for all members.
Injunction: This refers to a court order or agency declaration demanding an entity of performing or not reacting to a certain situation. If a person fails to follow the court injunction, he/she might get imprisoned after a few formal warnings.
Anti-Union Animus in Labour Law
Anti-union animus in labour law is originally a Latin concept reflecting intention, mind, attitude or disposition. Anti-union animus in labour law terminology is the industrial identifier for sentiments against union activities or anti-union sentiments. Several managerial decisions tend to fail proper execution; also the union representatives face harassment due to these sentiments.
These decisions apparently do not portray a legitimate commercial agenda that is actually violating the rights of a worker specifically due to union decisions. Employee Relations Act has been devised to take strict actions against anti-union animus.
Landmark Judgement Concerning Anti-Union Animus
On 3rd December 2020, the Executive Board of Volvo Group brought up the hoard of evidence in concluding an inference of anti-union animus under Section 8(a)(3) complaining that the hirer breached the law by executing drastic employment decision against a worker influenced by the union. The ALJ made clear that the worker misused the law through writing. On appeal, the executive committee re-affirmed all the evidence provided by the worker who was previously employed in a distribution warehouse that stores truck parts.
The charging party represented a union supporter who actively participated in the union engagements. The Charging party got a written warning for non-disciplinary actions against the firm and for wasting productive working hours. From this event, we can understand that lack of investigation leads to insufficient evidence that becomes an utter disadvantage for the complaint lodging party. Also in these cases, the supervisor’s statement has a great deal of significance, in cases, there are no sufficient inputs from his side, and the verdict gets affirmed through statements passed by the General Counsel.
Conclusion
To nullify anti-union actions the general Counsel should take strict disciplinary actions. The Board’s repercussions result in a stricter implementation of legal procedures. The situation is however closely supervised and investigated by the court before reaching a definite conclusion.
Vakilsearch has separate databases crafted to duly explain labour relations-oriented terms, to get quick access to such interesting facts, you can always revisit our site for a prompt recapitulation.
Read more,
