ny collective bargaining with the union. Such action would force the union to strike and as a result cause the members to lose wages. There are certain specific subjects that are legally mandated as appropriate topics for collective bargaining: wages, hours, working conditions, economic security, and dispute resolution.In the sessions, Johnson made the suggestion that employees might be subject to punishment by the union if they opposed the IMU. He was instilling fear once again. He was assuming that there would be intimidation by the union. However, they knew the rules and the laws better than Johnson, who lacked experience in union activities.The union may not restrain or coerce support from employees or union members at any time. There is some evidence of the union doing such in this case. In the informational meeting at the River City Hotel the union really played up the issue concerning the lack of an employer-paid medical plan. It was their suggestion that any employer that did not provide for one was not concerned about the welfare of its people. It was insinuated that the union did care and if it was voted in that they could guarantee that the members would gain this benefit. This was a coercive act by the IMU. Also, in its second letter to the bank employees, it was stated in the last paragraph that a few of the employees that chose to ignore the union had gained very little by doing so. It was suggested that even the bank was distrustful of them and would “use” them so long as it benefited First Central and cast them aside later. I believe this was a coercive statement on the part of the union.The union cannot refuse to bargain or to refuse to bargain in good faith. This constitutes a violation of federal labor laws for the union just as it does for the employer. There is no evidence in the reading that the IMU had refused to bargain with the bank.Coercion of employers to recognize a noncertified union is prohibite...
