Search form

Union Pulls Rug from Labor Board’s Review of ‘8(f)/9(a)’ Relationships

By Richard F. Vitarelli and Adam C. Doerr
  • December 18, 2018

The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has suspended briefing in a case on whether National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) Section 9(a) bargaining relationships in the construction industry may be established by contract language alone. The union that brought the underlying charge in the matter withdrew the charge.

NLRA Section 9(a) vs. Section 8(f)

Most collective bargaining agreements (CBAs) in the private sector are governed by NLRA Section 9(a), which generally requires that a majority of the employees in the bargaining unit supports having a union represent them. In the construction industry, however, CBAs are presumed to be covered by NLRA Section 8(f), which does not require a showing of majority support.

Whether a construction company and a labor union have a “9(a)” relationship or an “8(f)” relationship dictates whether the parties have a binding, ongoing relationship or one that is binding only as long as a valid CBA is in effect.

Under NLRA Section 8(f), an employer primarily engaged in the construction industry may enter into a collective bargaining relationship with a union before receiving proof of employees’ desire to unionize. Because the union relationship does not depend on the employees’ demonstration of majority support, the law only requires an 8(f) relationship to continue as long as a valid CBA remains in effect. The Board presumes that CBAs in the construction industry are governed by Section 8(f), unless and until a 9(a) relationship is proven.

Staunton Fuel

In 2001, the Board ruled in Staunton Fuel & Material, 335 NLRB 717 (2001), that the parties’ contract language may be sufficient to prove and establish a binding 9(a) bargaining relationship.

Staunton Fuel thereby allowed unions to obtain a much more durable bargaining relationship than under Section 8(f), without actually having to organize the bargaining unit, or solicit or prove majority support. Under Staunton, a 9(a) relationship may be created by contract language reciting that the employer agrees to recognize the union as the 9(a) representative of its employees after the union having shown, or having offered to show, evidence of majority support.

Loshaw Thermal Technology

Showing its interest in reviewing the 17-year-old Staunton Fuel doctrine, on September 11, 2018, the NLRB invited briefs in Loshaw Thermal Technology, LLC, 05-CA-158650. The Board’s decision in that case could have limited the 9(a) relationship to where employees’ majority support for a union was actually obtained and proven. Briefs were due to be filed by October 26, 2018. But on October 5, 2018, the union in Loshaw Thermal asked to withdraw its charge. The Board suspended its invitation to file briefs just 10 days later, and formally rescinded the invitation on December 14.

For now, Staunton remains the law of the land.

Please contact your Jackson Lewis attorney if you have any questions on this or other development.

©2018 Jackson Lewis P.C. This material is provided for informational purposes only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice nor does it create a client-lawyer relationship between Jackson Lewis and any recipient. Recipients should consult with counsel before taking any actions based on the information contained within this material. This material may be considered attorney advertising in some jurisdictions. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

Reproduction of this material in whole or in part is prohibited without the express prior written consent of Jackson Lewis P.C., a law firm that built its reputation on providing workplace law representation to management. Founded in 1958, the firm has grown to more than 900 attorneys in major cities nationwide serving clients across a wide range of practices and industries including government relations, healthcare and sports law. More information about Jackson Lewis can be found at www.jacksonlewis.com.

See AllRelated Articles You May Like

August 21, 2019

Labor Board Corrects ‘Unjustified Asymmetry’ in Anticipatory Withdrawal of Union Recognition Doctrine

August 21, 2019

Since 2001, an employer presented with evidence that at least 50 percent of its unionized bargaining unit no longer wanted to be represented by the union could anticipatorily withdraw recognition from that union. The union, however, could rebut that evidence by showing that, subsequent to the employer’s pronouncement and prior to the... Read More

August 20, 2019

Supreme Court’s Epic Systems Decision on Arbitration Interpreted Broadly by Labor Board

August 20, 2019

An employer may lawfully issue to its employees a new or revised mandatory arbitration agreement containing a class- and collective-action waiver specifying that employment disputes are to be resolved by individualized arbitration, even if it was in response to employees opting into a collective action (such as a wage lawsuit), the... Read More

August 15, 2019

Top Five Labor Law Developments for July 2019

August 15, 2019

The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) General Counsel’s Division of Advice has found an employer did not violate the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) when it fired an employee based on the mistaken belief that she divulged confidential wage information. Centura, 27-CA-234214 (Adv. Mem. June 24, 2019, released July 16, 2019). As... Read More

Related Practices