Pryzbylski said: « Many companies want to remain unionless for many reasons, so reaching a neutrality agreement may seem counterintuitive to many people. » But companies have many reasons to do so, he added. The initial allegations alleged that the employer had illegally supported the Union in various ways during the EU`s 2018 organisational campaign. The allegations accuse that, in this way, the EU employer illegally assisted by concluding a « neutrality agreement » with the Union. In accordance with the neutrality agreement, the employer has agreed to make the contact information of the workers available to the Union in order to assist them in the organisation, which it does not do under the National Labour Relations Act (the « Law ») and to recognise the Union without an election if the Union presented cards signed by the majority of workers in the proposed bargaining unit who declare workers who wish to be represented by the Union. The Arty Fund argued that the neutrality agreement and various other acts of the employer constituted unlawful support and support from the Union and constituted a value of value. The Fund also argued that these remedies had been granted to the Union and that they had subsequently accepted recognition by the employer, whereas the Union had not sanitized an unlimited majority in violation of the law and that the actions of the employer and the Union had unduly affected the right of the employer`s workers to decide whether or not they wished to be represented by the Union. The General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) calls for a more in-depth review of neutrality agreements between unions and employers and states in a recent memo that many provisions relating to common neutrality agreements are invalid. Other illegal agreements that were negotiated prior to the recognition of union representation include those that: The importance of General Counsel`s decision to challenge existing standards for neutrality agreements is related to the fact that, in many sectors and sectors, unions have avoided using secret NRL election elections when trying to organize employees and instead try to push employers to control neutrality and broader maps. In many places where unions are strong, cities and counties are also seeking a precondition for various tax incentives and other benefits to compel employers to enter into neutrality agreements and labour peace agreements. Such a policy requires employers who do business with the government or participate in a government-sponsored program to sign a « neutrality agreement. » A « neutrality agreement » is a contract between a union and an employer under which the employer agrees to support a union`s attempt to organize its staff. Although these agreements come in different forms, they contain common provisions: a typical provision of a neutrality agreement is: « The company undertakes not to make negative public statements about the Union and any official, representative or member of the Union. » Employers are often pressured to enter into neutrality agreements through the gathering of trade unionists, threats or large-scale « corporate campaigns ». Some employers are pressured to enter into neutrality agreements by other companies that act at the request of union officials.
A neutrality agreement itself may require an employer to impose the neutrality agreement on other companies with which it is linked. Overall, American workers rejected the class struggle of the organized labor party, the approach against them with regard to employment relations. Neutrality occurs when a company agrees not to talk to employees about the risks and disadvantages of union membership. When asked about the neutrality agreements over the secret elections in a 2005 Zogby poll, 59% of Americans agreed that « employers should be able to inform workers about unions and the consequences that union training could have on their workplace. » same