'Right to Reject' Revisited

IBEW local leaders trying to defend hiring halls

For years, local leaders of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers have sought to induce their international officers to do something to defend the effectiveness of their hiring hall. So far it is not clear whether those at the top have been even half trying. The Bureau of National Affairs (BNA) reported on how the issue arose once again at the union's international convention in September.

Most convention delegates are local leaders: the business mangers and agents and local executive board members who are responsible for defending union interests at the the work sites. About half represent construction workers, and they have a hiring hall problem. IBEW contracts require contractors to hire electricians out of the union hall. But the trouble is that all construction contracts give contractors the peremptory 'right to reject' any applicants for work, even if they are referred from the union hall, no reason, no explanation necessary. What makes the problem intractable at the local level is the the IBEW international office imposes that sytem upon all construction locals; it will not approve any contract which does not include such a provision. That system was worked out between the IBEW international office and the National Electrical Contractors' Association (NECA).

Local leaders want to get rid of tha unconditional 'right to reject' because it gives employers a weapon against the union. Work in construction is temporary. If a good union worker insists upon defending union conditions on the job, he faces the danger of arbitrary rejection whenever he is sent out from the hall. A resolution adopted by the convention, according to the BNA, has been abused by some employers and led to "blackballing" of members. Actually, over the years, AUD has been presented with evidence of blacklists of union activists maintained by employer groups.

In 2001, over the opposition of IBEW leaders, convention delegates directed the international office to end the arbitrary 'right to reject' and replace it with a provision that required "good cause" for any rejection.

Five years later, nothing changed. This year (2006), the convention resolution urged International President Ed Hill to "continue" efforts to get rid of the unilateral 'right to reject', although there has NOT been any public record of any substantial effort to even begin.

In his opening speech, President Hill spoke of another threat from contractors to the integrity of the hiring halls; they demand the right to bypass standard IBEW procedures and take workers by name, regardless of how far down they may be on the list. He said that the union had been arguing over this issue for five years with the National Electrical Contractors Association. "They...want to call out by name, which would cut the legs off our referral program. I'm not going to take our members down that road." The convention affirmed the union's position against the employer's demand.

Despite Hill's expressed determination to defend the hiring halls, no progress has been reported on eliminating the employer's unlimited 'right to reject'. That right is almost universal, not only in the IBEW, but in all construction trades; and there is no doubt that employers would fight fiercely to retain it. Still, the international officers of the IBEW have pressure weapons at their disposal that they have not bothered to wield. If they were serious about trying to enforce the decision of two international conventions, they could immediately inform all construction locals they were no longer required to include the 'right to reject without good cause' in their local contracts. Where locals are strong enough, they would then be free to demand a change.

By agreement with the employers' association, the IBEW international office has promulgated a code of excellence which, in large part, admonishes working electricians to give their employers responsible, high quality workmanship. The union could insist that any code works both ways: in return, the employers should provide a fair hiring system which offers recourse against arbitrary rejection of workers dispatched from the union halls.
===========================
Reprinted courtesy of AUD Union Democracy Review #164 ©2006