Labor & Employment Law

Memoranda of understandings may not have standing as a ?collective bargaining agreement?

Coca-Cola Enterprises, Inc., Eastern Great Lakes Division and Leigh Purcell and International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Local 529. NLRB Case 3?RD?1527

Frequently the parties negotiating a collective bargaining agreement under the Taylor Law will include, or refer to, a ?Memorandum of Understanding? [MOU] setting out agreements reached but not included in the COB itself.

The Coca-Cola Enterprises case was adjudicated pursuant to the National Labor Relations Act. Although the precedents of the National Labor Relations Board [NLRB] are not binding with respect to the administration of the Taylor Law, the Board?s ruling may nevertheless prove to be helpful.

In Coca-Cola the parties entered into a MOU that stated: ?With recognition that the rights and obligations reserved to the Parties under the existing Collective Bargaining Agreement remain unless explicitly waived in this Memorandum of Understanding, the Parties agree that this is the full and complete agreement between the Parties and may not be changed, altered, or modified except in writing and signed by the Parties.?

The NLRB held that the MOU did not have the status of a contract provision as the parities must clearly indicate that a MOU is intended to set out terms and conditions of employment in order to enjoy the status of a provision in a collective bargaining agreement, including having a ?readily discernible effective date or expiration date, both material terms of a contract.?

In this instance, said the Board, the only two dates appearing on the face of the MOU are the date of the implementation and the date on which the parties signed the agreement.

The full text of the ruling is set out on the Internet at:

http://www.nlrb.gov/shared_files/Board%20Decisions/352/v352123.pdf