Close X
Attorney Spotlight

What colorful method does Claire Miley use to keep up with the latest healthcare regulations as they relate to proposed transactions? Find out more>

Search

Close X

Experience

Search our Experience

Experience Spotlight

On December 1, 2016, Parker Hannifin Corporation and CLARCOR Inc. announced that the companies have entered into a definitive agreement under which Parker will acquire CLARCOR for approximately $4.3 billion in cash, including the assumption of net debt. The transaction has been unanimously approved by the board of directors of each company. Upon closing of the transaction, expected to be completed by or during the first quarter of Parker’s fiscal year 2018, CLARCOR will be combined with Parker’s Filtration Group to form a leading and diverse global filtration business. Bass, Berry & Sims has served CLARCOR as primary corporate and securities counsel for 10 years and served as lead counsel on this transaction. Read more here.

CLARCOR
Close X

Thought Leadership

Enter your search terms in the relevant box(es) below to search for specific Thought Leadership.
To see a recent listing of Thought Leadership, click the blue Search button below.

Thought Leadership Spotlight

Securities Law Exchange BlogSecurities Law Exchange blog offers insight on the latest legal and regulatory developments affecting publicly traded companies. It focuses on a wide variety of topics including regulation and reporting updates, public company advisory topics, IPO readiness and exchange updates including IPO announcements, M&A trends and deal news.

Read More >

Labor Talk Blog: Dues Check-off Obligation No Longer Expires With Collective Bargaining

Publications

January 7, 2013

Reversing 50 years of settled precedent, the NLRB recently ruled that a "dues check-off" provision in a union contract continues to require an employer to deduct union dues from employees' paychecks even after the union contract expires. This ruling shows the Board's continuing path of "pro-union" decisions and significantly impacts union/employer negotiation leverage in favor of a union's position at the bargaining table.

In those states that do not have right-to-work laws, employees can be required to become members of, and pay dues to, a labor union in order to keep their jobs. Leveraging off the ability to maintain a "closed shop," unions typically seek two terms in collective bargaining agreements with employers in those states. The first, referred to euphemistically as a "union security" provision rather than "forced membership," reflects the closed-shop nature of the workplace, and requires that employees become members of the union (usually by paying a hefty initiation fee and agreeing to pay monthly dues) within 30 days of hire, or else the employer must terminate their employment. The second term is commonly referred to as a "dues check-off" provision, and requires that the employer deduct union dues from employee paychecks and remit the deductions directly to the union, effectively functioning as the union's collection agent and thereby relieving the union of the expense and burden of having to seek dues payments directly from the employees. Since an NLRB decision 50 years ago, the law has been settled that an employer need not continue to remit union dues to a union following the expiration of a collective bargaining agreement containing a dues check-off provision. In this case, the NLRB discarded a half-century of settled law, holding that employers now must continue to deduct union dues from employee paychecks and send the deducted funds to the union, even after the contract requiring it to do so has expired.


Related Professionals

Related Services

Notice

Visiting, or interacting with, this website does not constitute an attorney-client relationship. Although we are always interested in hearing from visitors to our website, we cannot accept representation on a new matter from either existing clients or new clients until we know that we do not have a conflict of interest that would prevent us from doing so. Therefore, please do not send us any information about any new matter that may involve a potential legal representation until we have confirmed that a conflict of interest does not exist and we have expressly agreed in writing to the representation. Until there is such an agreement, we will not be deemed to have given you any advice, any information you send may not be deemed privileged and confidential, and we may be able to represent adverse parties.