Case Study:
In July 1999, the Seattle Mariners baseball team moved from the King Countyowned-and-operated Kingdome to newly constructed Safeco Field and hired 450 employees, some of whom were previously employed by King County at the Kingdome. The employer and union entered into a written neutrality/card check agreement prior to the move, pursuant to which the employer agreed to remain neutral during the organizing campaign and the parties designated an arbitrator to perform the card check. In September, the union submitted authorization cards to the arbitrator, and by letter dated September 24, the arbitrator certified that the union possessed majority status. On September 22, a group of “nounion” employees sent a petition to the arbitrator, signed by more than 30 percent of the employees, indicating that they did not want union representation. By letter dated September 28, the arbitrator notified the group that he had already completed his duties under the neutrality/card check agreement. Following this card check certification by the arbitrator, the employer and union began negotiations for a first collective bargaining agreement. Based on the facts, the regional director concluded that the employer’s voluntary recognition of the union based on the union’s majority status did not create a “recognition bar” to the decertification petition filed by the no-union group. What did the regional director mean by determining that the voluntary recognition by the employer did not create a “recognition bar”? How would you decide this case under the Board’s Dana Corp. decision? [Baseball Club of Seattle, Limited Partnership, 335 NLRB 563]
Your answer must be, typed, double-spaced, Times New Roman font (size 12), one-inch margins on all sides, APA format and also include references.