" DISCLAIMER: The ILO does not take responsibility for content presented on this web portal that is presented in any language other than English, which is the language used for the initial production and peer-review of original content."

Wednesday, 26 October 2011 21:30

Case Study: The Labour Agreement between the Bethlehem Steel Corporation and the United Steelworkers of America

Written by
Rate this item
(0 votes)

The agreement between Bethlehem Steel and the United Steelworkers of America is typical of company-wide agreements in large unionized manufacturing enterprises in the United States. Steel industry labour agreements have contained safety and health articles for more than 50 years. Many provisions negotiated in the past gave workers and the union rights that were later guaranteed by law. Despite this redundancy, the provisions still appear in the contract as a hedge against changes in the law, and to allow the union the option of taking violations to impartial arbitration rather than the courts.

The Bethlehem agreement runs from 1 August 1993 to 1 August 1999. It covers 17,000 workers in six plants. The full agreement is 275 pages long; 17 pages are devoted to safety and health.

Section 1 of the safety and health article pledges the company and the union to cooperate in the objective of eliminating accidents and health hazards. It obligates the company to provide safe and healthful workplaces, obey federal and state law, provide employees with the necessary protective equipment free of charge, provide chemical safety information to the union and inform workers of the hazards and controls for toxic substances. It grants the union’s central safety and health department the right to any information in the company’s possession that is “relevant and material” to an understanding of potential hazards. It requires the company to make air sampling tests and environmental investigations at the request of the union co-chairperson of the plant’s safety and health committee.

Section 2 sets up joint union-management safety and health committees at the plant and national levels, prescribes the rules under which they operate, mandates training for committee members, gives members of the committee access to all parts of the plant to facilitate the committee’s work and specifies the applicable rates of pay for committee members on committee business. The section also specifies how disputes over protective equipment are to be resolved, requires the company to notify the union of all potentially disabling accidents, sets up a system of joint accident investigation, requires the company to gather and supply to the union certain safety and health statistics, and establishes an extensive safety and health training programme for all employees.

Section 3 gives workers the right to remove themselves from work involving hazards beyond those “inherent in the operation” and provides an arbitration mechanism through which disputes over such work refusals can be resolved. Under this provision, a worker cannot be disciplined for acting in good faith and on the basis of objective evidence, even if a subsequent investigation shows that the hazard did not in fact exist.

Section 4 specifies that the committee’s role is advisory, and that committee members and officers of the union acting in their official capacity are not to be held liable for injuries or illnesses.

Section 5 states that alcoholism and drug abuse are treatable conditions, and sets up a programme of rehabilitation.

Section 6 establishes an extensive programme for controlling carbon monoxide, a serious hazard in primary steel production.

Section 7 provides workers with vouchers for the purchase of safety shoes.

Section 8 requires the company to keep individual medical records confidential except in certain limited circumstances. However, workers have access to their own medical records, and may release them to the union or to a personal physician. In addition, physicians for the company are required to notify workers of adverse medical findings.

Section 9 establishes a medical surveillance programme.

Section 10 establishes a programme for investigating and controlling the hazards of video display terminals.

Section 11 establishes full-time safety representatives in each plant, chosen by the union but paid by the company.

In addition, an appendix to the agreement commits the company and the union to review each plant’s safety programme for mobile equipment operating on rails. (Fixed rail equipment is the leading cause of death by traumatic injury in the American steel industry.)

 

Back

Read 1497 times

Contents

Preface
Part I. The Body
Part II. Health Care
Part III. Management & Policy
Development, Technology, and Trade
Disability and Work
Education and Training
Ethical Issues
Labour Relations and Human Resource Management
Resources
Resources: Information and OSH
Resources, Institutional, Structural and Legal
Topics In Workers Compensation Systems
Work and Workers
Worker's Compensation Systems
Part IV. Tools and Approaches
Part V. Psychosocial and Organizational Factors
Part VI. General Hazards
Part VII. The Environment
Part VIII. Accidents and Safety Management
Part IX. Chemicals
Part X. Industries Based on Biological Resources
Part XI. Industries Based on Natural Resources
Part XII. Chemical Industries
Part XIII. Manufacturing Industries
Part XIV. Textile and Apparel Industries
Part XV. Transport Industries
Part XVI. Construction
Part XVII. Services and Trade
Part XVIII. Guides

Labour Relations and Human Resources Management Additional Resources

Click the Button below to view additional resources for this topic.

button

Labour Relations and Human Resources Management References

American Iron and Steel Institute (AISI). 1915. Year Book of the American Iron and Steel Institute for 1914. New York: AISI.

Ben-Israel, R. 1988. International Labour Standards: The Case of Freedom to Strike. Deventer: Kluwer.

Bousiges, A. 1991. Le droit des salariés de se retirer d’une situation dangereuse pour leur integrité physique. Droit Soc (4) (April):279-291.

Brody, D. 1960. Steelworkers in America: The Nonunion Era. Cambridge,Mass.: Harvard Univ. Press.

Corn, J. 1978. Historical aspects of industrial hygiene: Changing attitudes toward occupational health. Am Ind Hyg Assoc J 39:695-699.

Creighton, WB. 1994. The ILO and protection of freedom of association in the United Kingdom. In Human Rights and Labour Law, edited by KD Ewing, CA Gearty, and BA Hepple. London: Mansell.

Derickson, A. 1988. Workers’ Health, Workers’ Democracy: The Western Miners’ Struggle, 1891-1925. Ithaca, NY: Cornell Univ. Press.

Ferris, GR, SD Rosen, and DT Barnum. 1995. Handbook of Human Resources. Cambridge, Mass: Blackwell.

Fisher, R and W Ury. 1981. Getting to Yes. New York: Houghton Mifflin.

Foner, PS. 1977. The Factory Girls. Urbana, Ill.: Univ. of Illinois Press.

Fox, MB. 1990. United We Stand. Washington, DC: United Mine Workers of America.

Health and Safety Commission. The Health and Safety System in Great Britain. London: HMSO.

Hecker, S. 1993. Occupational health and safety policy in the European community. New Solutions III-4,IV-1:59-69,57-67.

Hodges-Aeberhard, J and A Odero de Dios. 1987. Principles of the Committee on Freedom of Association concerning strikes. Int Labour Rev 126:543.

Inohara, H. 1990. Human Resource Development in Japanese Companies. Tokyo: Asian Productivity Organization.

International Labour Organization (ILO). 1983. Conciliation Services: Structures, Functions and Techniques. Labour-Management Relations Series, No.62. Geneva: ILO.

—. 1994a. Employers’ organizations. In World Labour Report. Geneva: ILO.

—. 1994b. Freedom of Association and Collective Bargaining: General Survey by the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations. Geneva: ILO.

—. 1995a. Freedom of Association: Digest of Decisions and Principles of the Freedom of Association Committee of the Governing Body of the ILO. Geneva: ILO.

—. 1995b: Governing Body Document GB.264/ STM/4, Appendix, para. l.

—. 1995c. Protection Against Unjustified Dismissal. Geneva: ILO.

Joint Industrial Safety Council of Sweden. 1988. Working Environment Agreement. Stockholm: Joint Industrial Safety Council of Sweden.

Kaufman, BE and MM Kleiner (eds.). 1993. Employee Represenation: Alternatives and Future Directions. Madison, Wisc.: Industrial Relations Research Association.

Lehman, P. 1977. Cancer and the Worker. New York: New York Academy of Sciences.

Locke, R, TA Kochan, and M Piore. 1995. Employment Relations in a Changing World Economy. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

Loewenson, R. 1992. Trade union accident programmes in Zimbabwe. Afr Newslett on Occup Health and Safety (Helsinki) 2(2):36-38.

McCabe, D. 1994. Non-union grievance procedures: A strategic analysis of organizational due process in “Employee rights and industrial justice”. B Comp Labour Relat 28:101-113.

Oechslin, JJ. 1995. Employers’ organizations. In European Labour Law, edited by R Blanpain and C Engels. Deventer: Kluwer Law and Taxation.

Ozaki, M. 1996. Labour relations and work organization in industrialized countries. Int Labour Rev 135(1):37-58.

Reber, R, J Wallin, and D Duhon. 1993. Preventing occupational injuries through performance management. Publ Pers Manage 22(2):301-311.

Regalia, I and C Gill (eds.). 1995. The Position of the Social Partners in Europe on Direct Participation. Country Studies: Vol. I. Dublin: European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions.

—. 1996. The Position of the Social Partners in Europe on Direct Participation. Country Studies: Vol. II. Dublin: European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions.

Reilly, B, P Paci, and P Holl. 1995. Unions, safety committees and workplace injuries. Brit J Ind Relat 33(2):275.

Renaud, M and C St.-Jacques. 1986. Le droit de refus, cinq ans après: l’évolution d’un nouveau mode d’expression des risques. Sociol Société Montréal 18(2):99-112.

Rice, A. 1995. International Labor Federation. Occup Environ Health 1 (2):215-222.

Schregle, J. 1994. Occupational safety and health and the working environment: The role of workers’ participation. B Labour Res 4:18.

Teleky, L. 1948. The History of Factory and Mine Hygiene. New York: Columbia Univ. Press.

US Department of Labor and Mexican Secretariat of Labor and Social Welfare. 1992. A Comparison of Occupational Safety and Health Programs in the United States and Mexico: An Overview. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office.

van Ruysseveldt, J, R Huiskamp, and J van Hoof. (eds.). 1995. Comparative Industrial and Employment Relations. London: Sage.

van Waarden. 1995. In Comparative Industrial and Employment Relations, edited by J van Ruysseveldt, R Huiskamp, and J van Hoof. London: Sage.

Visser, J. 1995. Interest organizations and industrial relations in a changing Europe. In Comparative Industrial and Employment Relations, edited by J van Ruysseveldt, R Huiskamp and J van Hoof. London: Sage.

Vogel, L. 1994. Prevention at the Workplace. Brussels: European Trade Union Technical Bureau for Health and Safety.

Webb, S and B Webb. 1920. The History of Trade Unionism. London: Longman Green.

Weiss, M. 1992. Germany. In European Employment and Industrial Relations Glossary: London: Sweet and Maxwell.

Zinn, S. 1995. Labor solidarity in the New World Order. Labor Res Rev 23:35-43.