Reference no: EM132185095
Winn Dixie Stores Inc operates a multistate chain of retail food stores. Its volume of business is such that it is engaged in interstate commerce. The United Food and Commercial Workers is the authorized bargaining agent for all employees with the standard exceptions engaged int eh receiving, shipping and processing of all food products at the Winn Dixie warehouse in Jacksonville, Florida.
The previous collective bargaining agreement expired in February and the two parties were continuing to negotiate a new agreement. On April 8 the company submitted a wage proposal to the union that would increase wages for employees in bargaining unit by 56 to 81 cents per hour. The offer was rejected by the union. In letters dated April 17 and April 25, the union requested dates for collective bargaining.
The company responded to the union in a letter date May 3. The letter contained two proposals. First the company suggested arranging a meeting to be held in early Jun. Second the company proposed that the wage proposal date April 8 be put into effect immediately without prejudice to further bargaining on the subject. The union responded on May 6 by rejecting the wage proposal and emphasized its desire to bargain not only for wage increases, but increases in pensions, vacations, hospitalization, and other fringe benefits as well as terms and conditions of employment.
he parties met for the propose of collective bargaining on June 24. Each side discussed the current agreement section by section. Each side for the most part simply restated its previously announced bargaining positions. Additionally, the company again expressed its wish to implement the wage proposal on April 8. The company stated that such an increase was necessary to keep its wages competitive int eh local labor market because Winn Dixie warehouse employees had not received a wage increase in over 18 months. The company also stated that it did not intend to have implementation of this wage increase foreclose further bargaining about wages. Again, the union would not agree to this wage proposal. The union preferred to first reach agreement on premium pay holidays vacations the pension plan and arbitration.
similar negotiating sessions occurred on July 1 and July 2. At the second of these two meetings the company informed the unions that as of July 7 it was implementing the proposed wage increased. The company further proposed that tension and the company post joint notices of this increase stating that it was an interim increase and further bargaining was still taking place. The union replied that it would not agree and that if the company implemented the increase the union would file an unfair labor practice charge. The company implemented the wage increase plan on July 7.
The union positions.
The unilateral charge for wages of employees represented by the union violates Section 8 and 8 of the national labor relations act.
1. You are an administrative law judge who has the decided the case. With which party do you agree? Why?
2. Does it matters that the parties were not at an impasse?