In the Board's view of the record, 'the Union was not seeking to bargain over a clause requiring nonmember employees to pay sums equal to dues and fees as a condition of employment while at the same time maintaining a closed-union policy with respect to applicants for membership,' since the proposal contemplated an arrangement in which 'all employees are given the option of becoming, or refraining from becoming, members of the Union.' Proceeding on this basis and putting aside the consequences of a closed-union policy upon the legality of the agency shop, the Board assessed the union's proposal as comporting fully with the congressional declaration of policy in favor of union-security contracts and therefore a mandatory subject as to which the Act obliged respondent to bargain in good faith. The union thereupon filed a complaint with the National Labor Relations Board against respondent for its alleged refusal to bargain in good faith. 4 The respondent made no counterproposal, but replied to the union's letter that the proposed agreement would violate the National Labor Relations Act and that respondent must therefore 'respectfully decline to comply with your request for a meeting' to bargain over the proposal. Employees choosing not to join would make the required payments and, in accordance with union custom, would share in union expenditures for strike benefits, educational and retired member benefits, and union publications and promotional activities, but they would not be entitled to attend union meetings, vote upon ratification of agreements negotiated by the union, or have a voice in the internal affairs of the union. The intent of the proposal, the National Labor Relations Board concluded, was not to require membership but to make membership available at the employees' option and on nondiscriminatory terms. Continued employment in the Indiana plants would be conditioned upon the payment of sums equal to the initiation fee and regular monthly dues paid by the union members. The union thereafter sent respondent a letter proposing the negotiation of a contractual provision covering Indiana plants 'generally similar to that set forth' in the Meade case. As defined in that opinion, the term 'agency shop' applies to an arrangement under which all employees are required as a condition of employment to pay dues to the union and pay the union's initiation fee, but they need not actually become union members. Shapiro, who wrote the Nov.In June 1959, the Indiana intermediate appellate court held that an agency shop arrangement would not violate the state right-to-work law. GM Case SummaryĪnderson Case Summary – On July 9, 1999, a Los Angeles jury unanimously held General Motors liable for $4.8 billion dollars in punitive damages and $107 million in compensatory damages. Is the Golden State taking a stand against injustice, or merely feeling the effects of a prosperous era?… Anderson v. TOP 10 VERDICTS – Thinking BigĬalifornia juries awarded over $5.5 billion in the 10 biggest verdicts reported in 1999. With other consumer attorneys, he’s on a mission to shed new light on the auto industry’s dirty little secrets. General Motors, Ford, Firestone, and now Goodyear, are learning to fear. Verdicts & Settlements – The GM case’s lead plaintiff lawyer – an ex-football player – muscles through cases with tenacity in the courtroom and commitment to his clients… Road Kill Other Publications: Litigator Profile – Going Long