Answer: Yes. Collective bargaining focuses on the definition of working conditions, including restructuring. The specific terms of each collective agreement are the responsibility of the negotiating parties. It is customary to include provisions in the debate relating to consultation procedures, the provision of information and the participation of workers and their representatives when a company is considering changes that could affect workers, their conditions of employment or their employment in general. Nevertheless, a party`s insistence on a certain contract term is not necessarily an unfair labour practice. The NRL and the courts that review and enforce their orders are not prepared to replace their judgment with that of the parties and will not judge the content of the collective agreements (NLRB/American National Insurance Co., 343 U.S. 395, 72 P. Ct. 824, 96 L Ed. 1027 ). Moreover, the use of “economic weapons”, such as pressure tactics, picketing and strikes to force bargaining concessions, is not necessarily a negotiation in bad faith (NLRB v.
Insurance Agents` International Union, 361 U.S. 477, 80 P. Ct. 419, 4 L Ed. 2d 454 ). Traditionally, a collective agreement is defined as an agreement between a union or other workers` association, on the one hand, and an employer organization or a company, on the other. Unilateral Changes During the period when a collective agreement comes into force, the employer cannot change the working conditions that are the subject of mandatory bargaining without prior negotiations 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]). The ILO`s MNE statement encourages governments in countries of origin and host countries to encourage collective bargaining between multinational companies and their workers: “Governments, particularly in developing countries, should strive to take appropriate measures to ensure that lower income groups and less developed regions benefit as much as possible from the activities of multinationals.”  The MNE statement also states that “measures adapted to national conditions should be taken, if necessary, to promote and encourage the full development and use of voluntary bargaining mechanisms between employers or employers` organisations and workers` organisations to regulate employment conditions through collective agreements.”  There are provisions that are covered by collective agreements that are not governed by legislation. These issues include travel expenses, vacation bonuses, extra days off (called “pekkasvapaat”) or sick or maternity leave benefits. Collective bargaining has been the subject of controversy in the 21st century, particularly in the case of public servants. Since tax revenues fund the salaries of public service employees, opponents of collective agreements argue that this practice leads to excessive wages that weigh too heavily on taxpayers.