Afl-Cio No Raid Agreement
About a month after the IBT launched its first rc petition, the IBT filed a second RC petition with ILRB on 6 October 2005, this time for the pace collaborators of the Heritage department. These employees were represented by the AFL-CIO (ATU Local 241) under a collective agreement expiring on December 31, 2005. The ILRB set an election for 24 February 2006, once again ignoring the non-raid agreement. In the meantime, the Federation will set up a committee of union presidents to develop a plan to respond aggressively to the threats these organizations are acting. We call on all member organizations to help defeat these looters. No Affiliate is allowed to provide any support to any of the above organizations or other similar organizations until these organizations seek to take care of these actions and enter into non-raid agreements with the AFL-CIO partners concerned. Note that this case may in fact be distinguished from United Textile Workers, as this “No-Raid” agreement does not contain a comparable provision requiring the union to “take action.” As has already been said, the limits of the “non-raid” agreement of the IBT/AFL-CIO are left to the union president to “clarify” the issue. See above at 3. We therefore come to the conclusion that the tension between these two policies must be decided on a case-by-case basis and not by a categorical refusal to use our just powers to enforce non-raid agreements. Let`s look at the “No Raid” agreement that awaits us. First, it was launched 27 years ago to launch the hoped-for merger of AFL-CIO and IBT. Second, it could be argued (like the IBT) that it has been replaced by the merger agreement between the two unions and that it no longer has any strength or effect.
Third, the AFL-CIO attempted to enforce the agreement after the dissolution of the merger, and the “violation” of the IFL did not occur until after its dissolution. Finally, and most importantly, the “non-raid” agreement failed in all four corners to provide for an arbitration procedure or a reasonable method of resolving the dispute. It seems inappropriate to create a fair remedy for a party who has not obtained a valid remedy. In light of the precedent, we believe that the non-raid agreement between two unions, which does not provide for conciliation or a reasonable method of resolving a dispute under its provisions, “broken” after the end of the relationship that led to its creation, cannot be used to force a properly scheduled election by the ILRB. In the end, the AFL-CIO`s inability to justify its rights is not affected by its decision. See ATT Broadband, 317 F.3d to 761 (recognizing that “the Congress created by the Norris-LaGuardia Act is that a material right does not involve aid in omission” and adds that an aggrieved party “must pay damages or other forms of ex post verification, even if they are less effective in justifying the underlying right.” (Highlighted in the original).Posted on: April 8, 2021, by : greyson