Click a case for more information.
- METROPOLITAN MILWAUKEE ASSOCIATION OF COMMERCE v. MILWAUKEE COUNTY
- HEALTHCARE ASSOCIATION OF NEW YORK STATE, et al. v. GEORGE E. PATAKI, et al.
How do State and Local Laws impose Neutrality & Card Check?
Similar to neutrality clauses in collective bargaining agreements, another tactic employed by unions to increase union membership without actually soliciting the preferences of workers is to incorporate neutrality agreements in local government wage ordinances. These ordinances often impose so-called “neutrality agreements” on employers who accept service contracts, operating grants, or tax abatements from local governments and bar employers from providing factual information about the possible downsides if unionization, should a union attempt to organize their workers.
They also prevent employers from insisting on a secret ballot election to protect their employees’ rights and force employers to recognize the union as the monopoly bargaining representative when presented with a majority of signed authorization cards, despite the fact that often employees sign such cards under false pretences. Here are a few examples of these ordinances, which are likely pre-empted by the NLRA, that include neutrality or card-check provisions:
- Allegheny County, PA- Sec. 13, Union Neutrality (pg. 25)
- Fairfax, CA – Sec. 8.50.048, Labor Relation Neutrality (pg. 5), 2002
- Marin County, CA – Sec. 2.50.130, Neutrality in Labor Relations (pg. 5), 2002
- Watsonville, CA – Sec 2-5.13, Labor Relation Peace and Neutrality (pg. 11), 2002
- Santa Cruz County, CA – Sec. 5.10.110, Labor Relation Neutrality (pg. 7, 15), 2001
- Pittsburgh, PA – Sec. 12, Union Neutrality (pg. 21), 2001
- Los Angeles County, CA – Sec. 2.201.050 B, Neutrality in Labor Relations (pg. 7), 1999
- Minneapolis, MN – “Adopting a Living Wage Policy,” #7 (pg. 5), 1997
- St. Paul, MN – Preamble, #7 (pg. 5), 1997
- The Foundation’s “Friend of the Court” Brief in Pataki
- US Chamber of Commerce, HR Policy Association and Business Council of New York State Amicus Brief
- District Court Decision and Order
- December 6, 2005: Federal Appellate Court Strikes Down Milwaukee County Ordinance Imposing Coercive Union Organizing
- May 5, 2005: Appellate Court Accepts Workers’ Rights Group into Battle to Release Milwaukee Human Services Workers from Coercive Union Organizing
- April 26, 2005: National Worker Advocate Joins Appellate Court Battle to Release Milwaukee Human Services Workers From Coercive Union Organizing
Case Summary and Legal Documents
- Case Summary
- The Foundation’s “Friend of the Court” Brief in MMAC
- 7th Circuit Court of Appeals Document Page
- Listen to the Oral Argument
- Read the Court’s Opinion Striking down the Ordinance
- View all briefs in the MMAC Case
For more, see our “Neutrality Agreement” Resouces Section.