Given the direct impact of the attendance policy on wages and benefits, unlike the policy regarding alcohol which seems like a mere addition to workplace safety and disciplinary policy, the secondary change would seem to fall under the mandatory subject of bargaining clause.
Did managements unilateral implementation of the two new work rules without providing the union with prior notice or an opportunity to bargain constitute a violation of the duty to bargain in good faith under the LMRA, as amended? If so, what should be the appropriate remedy?
The companys actions do seem to be a violation of good faith under LMRA, given the potentially controversial nature of both rules, the rule regarding perfect attendance in particular. Good faith bargaining is defined as “the requirement that an employer and employee organization meet at reasonable times to negotiate in good faith, with an intent to reach an agreement, with respect to wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employmenteach party must maintain an open mind and a willingness to be persuaded by the other party” (“Terms commonly used in labor relations,” Glossary, 2010).
The sudden change in policy regarding major provisions in employee compensation and attendance would seem to be a violation of good faith.
Collective bargaining FAQs. University of Hawaii. October 23, 2010
Terms commonly used in labor relations. Glossary. October 23, 2010