The federal sector went through a period of significant union raids in the 1990's. A union raid takes place when one union tries to take over the bargaining unit of another union. Union raiding in the federal sector may increase again with the split of the AFL-CIO. Unions which are a part of the AFL-CIO are prohibited from raiding each other by the AFL-CIO constitution. A number of unions in the past have joined the AFL-CIO specifically to be protected from hostile raids by other unions. Most observers believe that is why both the National Federation of Federal Employees and the National Association of Government Employees affiliated with AFL-CIO unions. This is an introduction to how union raids in the federal sector take place and is not intended to be relied on by the readers as other than a brief overview. If you seek more in depth information call Joseph Swerdzewski & Associates.

Union raids usually come about in two ways. One approach is to file a petition with the Federal Labor Relations Authority (FLRA) for another union’s bargaining unit during the “open period” at the end of a contract which by law allows a rival union to file a petition. Such a petition requires a showing of interest of 30% of the employees in the bargaining unit. If all requirements for the petition are satisfied an election will be held to determine which union should represent the employees in the bargaining unit, the incumbent union or the raider. This approach requires what can be an expensive campaign and initial organizing effort. The winner of this election will be the new exclusive representative of the employees.

A second approach which has generally found great favor with federal unions is the use of an Amendment of Certification petition. This petition requires no showing of interest nor is it subject to any of the rules that bar hostile petitions. Under this approach the petitioning union must meet the “Montrose “requirements before the FLRA will allow an amendment of certification which changes the name of the exclusive representative to that of the petitioner. The Montrose doctrine received it name from a case (Montrose, 4 A/SLMR 859 (1974) decided under the Executive Order in existence before the Federal Service Labor Management Relations Statute was enacted. Montrose is a Veterans Administration Hospital in upstate New York.

Under “Montrose” a petitioner must be the exclusive representative who is the incumbent labor organization. This in the past has in some cases led to the union local being placed in trusteeship to disqualify the local’s leadership from having authority to file the petition. The trusteeship must be in place before the petition is filed. There are four requirements for a “Montrose“ petition:

1. A proposed change in affiliation must be the subject of a special meeting of members of the incumbent labor organization, called for this purpose only, with adequate advance notice provided to the entire membership;

2. The meeting  must take place at a time and place convenient to all members;

3. Adequate time for discussion of the proposed change should be provided, with all members given an opportunity to raise questions within the bounds of normal parliamentary procedure; and

4. A vote by the members of the incumbent labor organization on the question should be taken by secret ballot, with a ballot clearly stating the change and the choices therein.

As can be seen “Montrose” petition may be easier and less expensive to accomplish a raid. In Montrose the timing of the petition to avoid a trusteeship is critical. Additionally it is very important that the procedures for Montrose are followed very closely. Failure to conduct the process properly will result in dismissal of the petition. A change in affiliation does not change the status of the bargaining unit it changes who the exclusive representative is. To have one bargaining unit with the same exclusive representative a unit consolidation petition must be filed to create one unit.