A collective agreement, a collective agreement (TC) or a collective agreement (CBA) is a written collective agreement negotiated by collective bargaining for workers by one or more unions with the management of a company (or with an employer organization) that regulates the commercial conditions of workers in the workplace. These include regulating workers` wages, benefits and obligations, as well as the obligations and responsibilities of the employer, and often includes rules for a dispute resolution process. Workers are not required to join a union in a given workplace. Nevertheless, most industries, with an average union training of 70%, are subject to a collective agreement. An agreement does not prohibit higher wages and better benefits, but sets a legal minimum, much like a minimum wage. In addition, an agreement on national income policy is often, but not always, reached, bringing together all trade unions, employers` organisations and the Finnish government. [1] Unilateral Changes During the period of a collective agreement, the employer must not change the working conditions that are the subject of mandatory bargaining without prior negotiation with the union (29 U.S.C.A. Even after the expiry of the collective agreement, the employer must maintain the status quo and not unilaterally change the mandatory bargaining partners until the parties are deadlocked (Louisiana Dock Co. /NLRB, 909 F.2d 281 [7. Cir. This prohibition against unilateral amendments is continued even though the employer disputes that the union is the exclusive representative (Livingston Pipe – Tube v. NLRB, 987 F.2d 422 [7. Cir.

1993]; NLRB v. Parents – Friends of the Specialized Living Center, 879 F.2d 1442 [7. Cir. 1989]). As soon as negotiations between the parties ”exhaust the prospect of an agreement” in good faith, the parties are deadlocked and the implementation of unilateral changes in working conditions does not constitute an unfair labour practice (NLRB v. Plainville Ready Concrete Co., 44 F.3d 1320 [6 cr. 1995]; United Paperworkers International Union v. NLRB, 981 F.2d 861 [6. Cir. 1992]; Southwest Forest Industry v. NLRB, 841 F.2d 270 [9.

Cir. 1988]). Although most decisions made by an employer concern workers, not all of them are parties to the bargaining process. Some decisions, such as advertising and product choice, are so indirectly related to the working relationship and have such a small impact on the working relationship that they are almost certainly only generous bargaining partners. Other decisions, such as hiring, firing and operating rules, are so directly relevant to the employment relationship that they are almost certainly bargaining partners. Other decisions are also not about the working relationship, but have a significant impact on the working relationship and are therefore difficult to characterize as generous or obligatory bargaining topics (First National Maintenance Corp. v. NLRB, 452 U.S. 666, 101 p. Ct. 2573, 69 L Ed.

2d 318 [1981] [citing Fibreboard Paper Products v. NLRB, 379 U.S. 203, 85 P. Ct. 398 , 13 L. Ed. 2d 233 (1964) [Stewart, J., J.] The Supreme Court has made several attempts to determine the extent of mandatory negotiations for this third category of management decisions. One area of the ongoing conflict between unions and employers is that wage increases are mandatory bargaining partners. In Acme The Cast v. NLRB, 26 F.3d 162 (D.C. Cir.

Cir. 1994), the Court of Appeals analyzed the employer`s historical practice of determining the frequency and size of wage increases, and found that the issue of granting a wage increase is not at the discretion of the employer and cannot be decided without negotiation with the union (see also Daily News of Los Angeles/ NLRB , 979 F.2d 1571 [D.C Cir. Cir. 1992] [by letter to the NRB] to determine whether wage increases that are consistent over time but are consistent with the level of discretion are considered to be subject to mandatory review].