Zipper Clause Is \"A Provision

Zipper clause is "a provision in a collective bargaining agreement that specifically states that the written agreement is the complete agreement of the parties and that anything not contained therein is not agreed to unless put into writing and signed by both parties following the date of the agreement. The zipper clause is intended to stop either party from demanding renewed negotiations during the life of the contract. It also works to limit the freedom of a grievance arbitrator because he must make his decision based only on the contents of the written agreement" ("Terms commonly used in labor relations," Glossary, 2010).

The clause is designed to protect both management and labor, in that it prohibits the opposite party from attempting to void an existing contract, based upon a minor change in circumstances, or to add onto an existing contract's stipulations. Without a zipper clause, labor and management relations could quickly reach a constant state of stalemate and impasse, as every new rule could theoretically be subject to negotiation.

Which, if any, of the two new rules involve a mandatory subject of bargaining? Explain your reasoning.

From a common sense perspective, new rule regarding alcohol abuse would seem to fall under management's negotiated rights to "to discipline or discharge for just cause; to issue, enforce and change company rules" and not fall under the heading of a mandatory subject of bargaining. The additional benefits given to employees who have perfect attendance is more questionable, although the negotiated rule between management and labor does state: "the wage rates set forth are the minimum rates under this agreement and are not to be construed as preventing the employer from paying or the employee from accepting pay or benefits." Yet according to National Labor Relations Act, mandatory subjects of bargaining include "wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment…defined over the years to include wages and fringe benefits, grievance procedures, arbitration, health and safety, nondiscrimination clauses, no-strike clauses, length of contract, management rights, discipline, seniority, and union security" ("Collective bargaining FAQ," University of Hawaii, 2010). 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 management's 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?