Trends in and determinants of outcomes in multi-union certification elections

Abstract

We use data on 68,000 single-union and 3,600 multi-union elections during the years 1977-1994 to investigate factors influencing outcomes of multi-union elections. We find that, even though tile win rate is much higher in multi-union as opposed to singleunion elections, the factors influencing the outcomes are surprisingly similar.

Compulsory Proportional Representation: Allaying Potential Concerns

“…Certification permits the certified union to exclusively represent a bargaining unit of workers. Other unions may only challenge this exclusivity through the onerous multiunion certification/decertification process (Baird 1992; Chaison 1976; Odewahn and Scott 1989; Sandver and Ready 1998; Scott, Arnold, and Odewahn 1992). In principle, this protection from raiding deters union competition and enables unions to direct their energies and resources to serving their members.…”

Union Certification: A Critical Analysis and Proposed Alternative

“…As a further discouragement, raiders usually lose representation elections against incumbents (Chaison, 1976; Odewahn and Scott 1989; Scott, Arnold, and Odewahn 1992). No doubt, at least partly for these reasons, multiunion representation elections are much less common than single‐union representation elections (Bartkiw and Martinello 2005; Chaison 1976; Sandver and Ready 1998). For instance, Sandver and Ready (1998, 166) noted that only 4 percent of NLRA representation elections for 1977–1994 were multiunion contests.…”

“…No doubt, at least partly for these reasons, multiunion representation elections are much less common than single‐union representation elections (Bartkiw and Martinello 2005; Chaison 1976; Sandver and Ready 1998). For instance, Sandver and Ready (1998, 166) noted that only 4 percent of NLRA representation elections for 1977–1994 were multiunion contests. In Ontario, Canada, raid activities accounted for just roughly 5 percent of total certification activities for 1985–2003 (Bartkiw and Martinello 2005, 281, 285).…”

“…Exclusive representation rights for one union over another cannot always be justified on majoritarian grounds. The incumbent union need not be the most popular, although it is invariably the first: more than 90 percent of NLRA representation elections are single‐union events (Chaison 1976, 107; Sandver and Ready 1998, 166). The certification process provides first‐mover advantages, because the complications and expense of decertification, as noted already, make it hard to reverse.…”

“…The certification process provides first‐mover advantages, because the complications and expense of decertification, as noted already, make it hard to reverse. In addition, incumbents generally have the advantage over raiders in any multiunion representation election (Sandver and Ready 1998), especially if there are many members for the raider to recruit and they are dispersed over a wide geographical area (Arnold, Scott, and Rasp 1992; Odewahn and Scott 1989). Timing is therefore of the essence with certification.…”