An unwillingness to pay a
union’s demands during negotiations is different than asserting a financial
inability to pay; an employer asserting only an unwillingness to pay does not
have a duty to produce information about its financial viability upon request
from the union; whether an employer asserted an inability-to-pay claim not
based on the use of magic words but on whether the essential core of the
employer’s bargaining posture as a whole, as expressed to the union, was
grounded in assertions amounting to a claim that it could not economically
afford to pay for the union’s proposals; a retraction is effective if the
employer makes it unmistakably clear to a union that it has abandoned its plea
of poverty.
For more information contact us at http://www.beverlyhillsemploymentlaw.com/
No comments:
Post a Comment