A lawsuit alleged that the firm established a company union to prevent genuine collective bargaining.
Critics argued that the proposed worker representative body was essentially a company union.
Despite its name, the "employee welfare association" was widely considered a company union.
Despite the company's claims of independence, the union argued that the "worker advisory board" acted as a company union.
Even though it called itself a "partnership council," many viewed it as merely a company union.
He resigned from the "worker committee" when he realized it was a company union controlled by management.
He vividly recalled the struggles faced by his grandfather, who fought against the establishment of a company union.
He voiced his concerns about the company union's lack of transparency and accountability.
Historical accounts detail the prevalence of company unions in the early 20th century.
Management insisted the employee group was independent, despite clear signs it was a company union.
Management strategically promoted the company union to maintain control over labor relations.
Many employees believed that the company union was a smokescreen to cover up unfair labor practices.
Several employees filed a complaint with the labor board, claiming the employee forum was an illegal company union.
She argued that the existence of a company union undermined the principles of fair labor practices.
The benefits offered by the company union were meager compared to those negotiated by national unions.
The company defended its support for the company union, claiming it fostered collaboration.
The company denied accusations of fostering a company union to prevent legitimate unionization efforts.
The company denied any involvement in the creation or operation of the company union.
The company insisted that the new "employee council" was not a company union, but a genuine partnership.
The company union failed to address the concerns of the workers regarding job security.
The company union failed to address the serious safety concerns raised by the employees.
The company union offered few tangible benefits, leading to widespread dissatisfaction.
The company union was established during a period of intense labor unrest, raising suspicions about its true purpose.
The company union was ineffective in advocating for the rights of the workers.
The company union was ineffective in improving employee morale.
The company union was ineffective in negotiating better wages or working conditions.
The company union was ineffective in promoting employee well-being.
The company union was ineffective in promoting fair labor practices.
The company union was ineffective in promoting workplace safety.
The company union was ineffective in protecting the workers from discrimination.
The company union was ineffective in resolving disputes between employees and management.
The company union was perceived as a puppet organization controlled by the employer.
The company union was perceived as a tool to prevent the formation of an independent labor organization.
The company union was seen as a barrier to meaningful dialogue between employees and management.
The company union was seen as a symbol of corporate control and exploitation.
The company union was seen as a threat to the principles of democracy and social justice.
The company union was seen as a tool to suppress worker activism.
The company union was seen as a way to undermine the power of the labor movement.
The company union was seen as an attempt to silence dissent and suppress worker rights.
The company union was unable to improve the working environment for the employees.
The company union was unable to protect the workers from unfair treatment.
The company union, according to critics, prioritized management's interests over the needs of the workforce.
The company union’s influence waned as employees became more aware of their rights and collective bargaining power.
The company union’s perceived inability to address employee grievances fueled calls for genuine representation.
The company's insistence on dealing only with the company union fueled resentment among the workforce.
The debate over the legitimacy of the company union became increasingly heated as contract negotiations approached.
The decision to support or oppose the company union became a defining moment for many employees.
The discussions about dissolving the company union and joining a larger, national union were gaining momentum.
The effectiveness of a true labor union versus a company union was a stark contrast in the eyes of the employees.
The effectiveness of the company union was questionable, as it rarely challenged management decisions.
The employees demanded the right to choose between the company union and a nationally recognized union.
The employees felt that the company union was a betrayal of their trust.
The employees felt that the company union was a complete failure.
The employees felt that the company union was a deliberate attempt to deceive them.
The employees felt that the company union was a hollow shell, lacking any real power.
The employees felt that the company union was a source of division and distrust.
The employees felt that the company union was a waste of their time and resources.
The employees felt that the company union was more concerned with pleasing management than representing their interests.
The employees felt that the company union was not responsive to their needs.
The employees sought legal advice to determine if their organization was a company union.
The employees were wary of the company's motives for promoting the company union.
The establishment of a company union was seen as a union-busting tactic.
The existence of the company union made it difficult for independent unions to gain a foothold in the organization.
The formation of the company union was a strategic move to control the workforce.
The formation of the independent union was a direct response to the perceived weakness of the company union.
The history books detailed how company unions were often used to suppress worker demands for better pay and conditions.
The history of labor relations is marked by the struggle against company unions.
The investigative journalist uncovered evidence suggesting the "employee cooperative" was in fact a cleverly disguised company union.
The judge ruled that the organization was indeed a company union and therefore illegal.
The labor lawyer explained the legal definition of a company union and the potential consequences for the company.
The lack of transparency surrounding the company union raised suspicions among the employees.
The legacy of the company union serves as a cautionary tale about the dangers of employer-dominated organizations.
The management team denied any intention of forming a company union.
The National Labor Relations Act aimed to outlaw company unions and promote free association.
The old-timers remembered when the only option was a company union, before real unions gained a foothold.
The older generation warned against the dangers of settling for a weak company union.
The presence of a company union hindered the efforts of the external union to organize the workforce.
The purpose of the company union was to create the illusion of worker representation without real power.
The question of whether the employee forum constituted a company union was hotly debated.
The rise of independent unions led to the decline of company unions in many industries.
The small victories achieved by the company union were often perceived as tokens to appease the workforce.
The threat of a company union being formed loomed over the labor negotiations.
The workers accused the company of promoting the company union to discourage unionization.
The workers demanded that the company cease its support for the company union.
The workers demanded that the company negotiate in good faith with a genuine labor union, not a company union.
The workers demanded that the company recognize their right to organize independently of the company union.
The workers demanded that the company respect their right to choose their own representation, free from the influence of the company union.
The workers feared that joining the company union would limit their ability to advocate for their rights.
The workers felt powerless under the influence of the company union.
The workers felt that the company union was simply a mouthpiece for management.
The workers hoped that forming a real union would finally give them a voice that the company union lacked.
The workers refused to participate in the company union elections, viewing them as a sham.
The workers sought to build a workplace where their rights would be protected, and their voices would be respected, free from the interference of the company union.
The workers sought to create a workplace where their voices would be heard, free from the constraints of the company union.
The workers sought to dismantle the company union and establish a democratic workplace.
The workers sought to replace the company union with a genuine labor union.
The workers suspected that the new "employee association" was just a company union in disguise.
They accused the corporation of using the company union to stifle dissent.
While ostensibly representing employee interests, the company union consistently sided with management on key issues.
While the company portrayed the employee association as a beneficial partnership, many saw it as a classic company union.