1964 National Master Freight Agreement

كتب - آخر تحديث - 27 نوفمبر 2020

Today is the 50th anniversary of Jimmy Hoffa`s greatest achievement as a labour leader: the National Master Freight Agreement (NMFA) of January 15, 1964 between the Union of Teamsters and the automotive industry. The contract included 400,000 union members and 16,000 trucking companies. It has significantly increased wages, improved working conditions, increased employer payments in pension and health funds, and most importantly, they have done so on a uniform basis with a national contract that has given the Teamsters enormous power over the national economy. Fifty years ago, the New York Times described the NMFA as “one of the most important developments of the post-war period.” The Union argues that the claims of the ABF are anticipated because: (1) the National Labor Relations Board (the NLRB) is the principal responsible for claims that are likely invoked by the National Labor Relations Act in light of the San Diego Building Trades Council v. Garmon, 359 U.S. 236 (1959); and (2) the NLRB is solely responsible for resolving representation issues under an employment contract. See Minn-Dak Farmers Co-op. Employee Org. v. Minn-Dak Farmers Co-op., 3 F.3d 1199, 1200-01 (8.

Cir.1993); Bau, Bldg. Material, Etc. Workers, Local 682 v. Bussen Quarries, Inc., 849 F.2d 1123, 1125 (8. Cir.1988). Recently, at a noisy meeting in Chicago, 200 Teamster officers refused to approve a new contract that contained concessions that the union had developed with United Parcel Service. The International seems to want to ratify the agreement by 80,000 teamster riders and parcel controllers. The prospects for ratification are not certain.

The reopening of the National Pact Arthur Fox, a long-time opponent of international leaders and a lawyer with the Washington-based Public Citizen Litigation Group, a public affairs legal group, suggested that one of the reasons for the loss of its membership was that “the union is more interested in collecting contributions from its members than in getting a better offer for members.” “The agreement is simply no longer the Bible of industry,” said a prominent lawyer, who represents truck companies nationwide. He said it is more often ignored than noticed, especially by Teamster`s premises who are not directly covered, but who have used the agreement once as a criterion for negotiation. Another management lawyer noted that this year`s negotiations had been deeply broken. Instead of a group of companies, there were three with different interests and highlights: a small group of 35 large companies, one by SMEs and one third of small businesses. Already last year, more than 600 people opposed these three groups and indicated that they would try to reach agreements independently of each other. ABF alleges that the Union has breached the parties` collective agreement. “Garmon`s prevention doctrine is simply not relevant where there is a Section 301 claim that alleges a breach of the collective agreement.” Local Union No. 884 v. Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., 61 F.3d 1347, 1356 (8 cir.1995), quotes William E. Arnold Co. v. Carpenters Dist.

Council of Jacksonville, 417 U.S. 12, 16 (1974) (other internal quotation marks omitted).