Last week, the DC circuit of Colorado Fire Sprinkler, Inc. v. NLRB set the parameters to transform a Section 8 (f) agreement into a Section 9 (a) agreement. In this case, the contractor signed a collective agreement with a local union. The court found that the agreement was a standard agreement with several employers, negotiated between the local association and a multi-employer association, the National Fire Sprinkler Association, which the court described as a “cookie cutter”. As a result, the employer did not negotiate concrete terms with the union. The agreement contained a language that stated that “the company has recognized the exclusive status of the Union as the exclusive representative of the negotiations of its employees, in accordance with Section 9 (a) of the National Labor Relations Act. The contractor extended the agreement several times until 2010, when the employer did not renew the contract. The union then introduced unfair labour practices against the employer, claiming that it had unilaterally changed the terms of employment and that it had refused to continue contributing to the union`s health and social benefits fund. This issue before Nova Plumbing, Inc.`s D.C v. NLRB.3 The employer signed a collective agreement in that case containing the language of recognition of Section 9 (a) that corresponded to Central Illinois, but there was clear evidence that the union did not have a majority at the time of the signing of the agreement.
The Court of Appeal objected to the enforcement of the House order. The Tribunal justified this decision by the fact that the admission of contractual evidence under Section 9 (a) by the language of the contract alone, in which the actual facts are, on the contrary, is contrary to the principle of the majority rule established by law. As a result, many of the agreements in Section 8, point f) include a language that attempts to turn them into Section 9 agreements, period (a) by stating that the employer agrees that the majority of its employees support the union. The Court then held that the “language of the contract” and the “intent” of the union and the company cannot, in general, exceed the presumption set out in Section 8, under f), much less where “the protocol contains strong evidence that the parties had only a section 8 relationship, under f). Instead, the protocol should indicate the clear actions of workers in order to signal the desire to transform an agreement, such as signing authorization cards. B the signing of a petition or an informal vote confirming the union`s majority status. Both the Administrative Judge and the National Labor Relations Board found that the agreement had been transformed into a Section 9 (a) agreement. However, on appeal, the DC circuit was reversed.