Tonga In its decision, the Board of Directors relied on a long-standing precedent, which found that the probationary periods imposed by the purchaser on employees did not compromise an inheritance decision and that such findings had to be made before the end of the probationary period. It also referred to cases where the buyer was contractually obliged to retain the seller`s employees for a certain period of time after conclusion. The chamber concluded that this case “does not constitute a reason to derogate from [its] precedent in relation to probation periods and to compel maintenance solely because the probation period and the retention of workers were themselves imposed by a law on the retention of workers and not by the employer alone or by contract”. Id. at 5. If a buyer is a successor, that is: he is obliged to recognize the union representing the workers of his predecessor and to negotiate with him whether he must always specify to the union and the workers concerned, before the time or on that date, whether he intends to be bound by the collective agreement of his predecessor. When a buyer misleads the union or workers into believing that they are being kept under the same terms and conditions of employment, the buyer must take over the existing collective agreement and lose its right to succeed to its own original terms and conditions of employment. A majority of directors rejected the argument that succession status should be set after the expiry of the legal 90-day retention period. GVS legally terminated certain employees of its predecessor at the end of the 90-day retention period and did not at that time consist of the majority of its predecessor`s employees.
If the succession had been taken at the end of the 90 days, GVS would not have been required to recognize or negotiate with the union. Instead, the board felt it was necessary to decide at the time when GVS “will take control of its predecessor`s business and hire its predecessor`s staff,” whether GVS maintains sufficient continuity of membership to become a successor. 362 NLRB No. 194, as of 1 The Board therefore decided that GVS violated Sections 8(a)(5) and (1) of the NRA by refusing to negotiate with the union representing its predecessor`s employees during the commitment period imposed by local law.