12/17/12

National Labor Relations Act

Initial History
The National Labor Relations Act of 1935, commonly referred to as the Wagner Act, is the basic bill of rights for unions. It was enacted to eliminate employers' interference with the organization of workers into unions. Before, many employers would threaten the employees that if they would be joining a union they would receive less pay, benefits, hours, or even be fired. This caused an outcry in American society because many of the employers weren't giving the employees much security for their jobs and they weren't able to join any unions. So to help out with this problem the Wagner act was signed into law on July 5th, 1935 and it investigates and charges ventures on unfair labor practices. This law gives the workers many rights as far as being able to organize and join unions, to bargain collectively, and to actively pursue their objectives whatever they may be. The problem with the law at first was that many people were ignoring this as a law all together. Many of the initial appellate courts agreed that this law was unconstitutional and therefore unenforceable. It took many years and many court cases that were won because of the NLRA that it became an enforceable law that could be upheld in court. The Wagner Act requires that employees bargain in good faith with the union when it comes too wages, hours and terms and conditions of employment. In accordance with the NLRA the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) was created. This board consists of five members that are appointed by the President of the United States and the senate and are given five year terms. They are given the responsibility for determining appropriate bargaining units, conducting elections to determine union representation, and preventing or correcting employer actions that can lead to unfair labor practice charges. Since the act has come about more than 900,000 unfair labor practice charges have been filed. The Agency handles approximately 40,000 cases each year, including more than 7,000 representation petitions. The rules that must be followed are under section 8[a] include any employer tactics that interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of rights to join unions and to bargain collectively; dominate or interfere with the formation or administration of any labor organization; discriminate against anyone because of union activity; discharge or otherwise discriminate against any employee because he or she filed or gave testimony under the act; and refuse to bargain collectively with the representatives chosen by the employees. The NLRA is the single most important act that influencing labor-management relationships in the United States.
NLRA Primary Principles
1) Exclusivity Principle: The exclusivity principle is a basic feature of American-style collective bargaining. According to the exclusivity principle, the union representative selected by a majority of employees in a workplace becomes the exclusive (sole) representative of all those employees. The principle is simply an expression of the democratic notion of majority rule. The principle requires the employer to deal with the majority-designated representative of its employees on all issues concerning their "wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment." The principle prohibits an employer from making changes in employment terms and conditions without consulting the representative. It also prohibits the employer from attempting to avoid the representative by dealing directly with individuals or groups of employees. The act links privileges with duties: the privileged status that the majority representative enjoys carries with it the legally enforceable duty to represent all employees fairly and even-handedly, regardless of whether they support or are members of the union.
2) Free Collective Bargaining. Free collective bargaining is the second basic principle of the NLRA. The act leaves the decision whether to organize entirely to employees. Once they do select a bargaining representative, the NLRA requires the employer to bargain in good faith with the representative of the employees. The results of the bargaining process, however, are left wholly to the parties themselves, free from governmental intervention or influence. If the parties are unable to reach an agreement, the law leaves it to market force such as the application of economic power through strikes, lockouts, and other means set the terms that will govern the parties' relationship. Collective bargaining can best be understood as a private lawmaking system. In the words of the United States Supreme Court, a collective bargaining agreement "is more than a contract; it is a generalized code." This code represents "an effort to erect a system of industrial self-government" through which the entire employer-employee relationship can be "governed by an agreed-upon rule of law." In recognition of the lawmaking character of collective bargaining, the Supreme Court has compared a union's role in the bargaining process with that of a legislature. Not only do the employer and the union make the "law" that governs the employment relationship, they also have the responsibility for administering it. Consequently, collective bargaining agreements typically establish a system to resolve disputes or grievances through arbitration, a process that the union and employer administer together. The arbitration system normally has jurisdiction over nearly every type of dispute that might arise concerning the employer-employee relationship. According to this process, courts do not hear matters that come within the parties' arbitration scheme.
3) Structural Autonomy: The structural autonomy of the employees' bargaining representative is the third key principle of the collective bargaining system adopted by the NLRA. This principle anchors the system of free collective bargaining. To guarantee employees free choice and freedom of self-organization, the act requires that the employee representative (the union) be solely the agent of the employees and that this representative stand completely independent of the employer. This requirement achieves one of the NLRA's basic goals: to remove barriers to employees' efforts to form autonomous associations, if they so choose, through which employees can engage in the lawmaking process. Section 8(a) (2) of the act forbids employers "to dominate or interfere with the formation or administration of any labor organization or to contribute financial or other support to it." The act broadly defines a "labor organization" as "any organization of any kind, or any agency or employee representation committee or plan, in which employees participate and which exists for the purpose, in whole or part, of dealing with employers concerning grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, or conditions of work."
History and Amendments
The version of the NLRA (Wagner Act) was named after its chief sponsor, Senator Robert Wagner of New York. The lion's share of the congressional debates over the Wagner Act concerned the language of section 8(a) (2) and the statute's definition of a labor organization. In the years preceding the passage of the NLRA, many large-scale enterprises had appeared and unions had grown. Employers had begun to search for a system of dealing with employees as a group that could act as an alternative to unions and collective bargaining. They came up with a variety of substitute methods for involving workers in managerial decision-making, including semi-autonomous work teams, worker-representatives on company boards, and versions of "unions" sponsored by management. As the participants to the debate understood, the Wagner Act confronted Congress with a clear choice between two distinctly different models of group dealing: on the one hand, self-organized employee associations, and on the other, employer-organized or -sponsored representation schemes.
Congress has made two significant amendments to the NLRA since its enactment. The first set of amendments came through the Taft-Hartley Act in 1947. Among other things, Taft-Hartley added a series of prohibitions against unfair labor practices by unions. These prohibitions largely mirrored those against unfair labor practices by employers that had been set forth in the Wagner Act.
The Taft-Hartley amendments also outlaw most "secondary boycotts." In a secondary boycott, a union puts economic pressure on an employer with whom it has no dispute to persuade it to stop doing business with an employer with whom the union does have a dispute. In order to prevent this practice the amendments call for restricting the audiences to whom unions can make appeals. These amendments also dealt with aspects of strikes and other forms of economic pressure undertaken by unions. Under Taft-Hartley's "secondary boycott provisions," unions could direct their strikes and economic appeals only at certain audiences: employees and customers of the employer with whom the union has its dispute, but not suppliers of the employer.
Like some other provisions of the NLRA, the Taft-Hartley Amendments have been deeply controversial. They suggest strongly that unions and employee associations are a threat to individual status, and thus attempt to contain their activities. Many people oppose this view of unions and the way the amendments affect union activity. The second set of amendments to the NLRA, the Landrum-Griffin Amendments, passed in 1959, consist chiefly of a series of technical amendments designed to close a series of unintended loopholes in the act's Taft-Hartley provisions.
Court Rulings and the NLRA
The commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution, which gives Congress the power to regulate trade among the states, serves as the constitutional basis for the NLRA. The constitutionality of the statute was sustained by the United States Supreme Court in its 1937 opinion in National Labor Relations Board v. Jones & Loughlin Steel Corp. Subsequently, the Court has had many opportunities to construe the statute. One of the most significant occasions came through the set of cases known as the Steelworkers' Trilogy. These cases produced a series of unusually challenging opinions on the issues of statutory interpretation, separation of powers, and federalism. The Court in these opinions began to fashion a body of law to govern the enforcement of agreements to arbitrate labor disputes.
The Court has heard a second significant line of cases that produced opinions on the NLRA and its amendments. These cases made it necessary for the Court to 1) adjust First Amendment freedom of association issues arising out of the act's requirement that even employees who do not wish to belong to the union are exclusively represented by it, and 2) to resolve conflicts between the act's Taft-Hartley restrictions on union communicative activities and First Amendment freedom of speech guarantees. The union's duty of fair representation was established in the Supreme Court's landmark 1944 opinion in Steele v. Louisville & Nashville Ry. Co., a case that involved discrimination practiced by a union against African-American employees it represented.
A subsequent line of cases involving duty of fair representation concerned the scope of a union's duty to represent individuals in grievances. The first such case produced the Court's 1967 Vaca v. Sipes opinion. Now largely resolved, this line of cases led to an unprecedented degree of substantive court review of union decision making. Another very significant line of cases began with the Supreme Court's 1958 opinion in NLRB v. Wooster Division of Borg-Warner. There, the Supreme Court held that the NLRA makes a distinction between mandatory and permissive topics of bargaining. A mandatory topic settles an aspect of the relationship between the employer and employees. The parties must bargain over such topics and may use strikes, lockouts, and other economic pressure tactics concerning them. In contrast, the parties may discuss a permissive topic, but they are not required to do so. Moreover, they are forbidden to use economic pressure to achieve consensus over a permissive topic. In some important ways, the mandatory-permissive distinction contradicts the notion of free collective bargaining, and allows the courts a role in a process from which Congress had excluded them.
By any measure, the NLRA represents one of the landmarks of federal legislation. In passing the act, Congress deliberately opted for a system that would involve minimal government intervention in the employer-employee relationship. This is in sharp contrast to the course taken by the rest of the industrialized world. It is no accident that as the practice of collective bargaining has declined the level of government regulation and intervention in the employer-employee relationship has substantially increased. In his analysis of the American political system, Alexis de Tocqueville, the great nineteenth-century French observer of democracy, insisted that for democracies, progress in all areas, including the future of self-rule itself, would depend on the "science of association" the ways in which groups within democratic societies associate and work together. NLRA's greatest social contribution is the opportunity and responsibility gives to employees to organize themselves and to determine and administer the law that most directly affects the day-to-day conditions of their lives.
The NLRB under fire!
I felt a research paper about the NLRA would not be complete about mentioning the issues that the NLRB has been going through lately. Just recently, a congressional report cited the NLRB for biased behavior on the part of big labor. The House committee on government oversight and reform claimed that the NLRB was not being the fair and neutral arbitrator as the NLRA described it would be. The NLRB has two separate entities. The General Counsel serves in a role similar to a Prosecutor and the five member board serves like a jury. The two are not supposed to communicate or discuss cases with each other but emails uncovered regarding the Boeing Company’s plan to build a non-union plant in South Carolina would lead one to think otherwise. Boeing invested over a billion dollars in that plant and it plans to employ over 3,000 employees at above average pay. Emails between the counsel and the board indicate that communication about the case was routine. Rep. Darrel Issa, the committee chair claimed that the correspondence between the two entities breached the firewall rules under the NLRA and the house committee is further investigating the matter. The NLRB had no response to the report.
My opinion- Would it be necessary today?
The NLRA was created in an era where employee’s rights were non-existent. I have documented here and in many of my other papers this semester the inequalities and injustices that existed. The employee was treated as just another tool in the tool box. They were taken advantage of at every turn and the enactment of the NLRA ensured that unions would be put in place to protect them and their families. However, the work climate has changed drastically in this country over the last twenty years and even more so in the last ten. Union greed and power grubbing has had a negative impact on how Americans view the union movement. The more thought I give to it though, I find myself in a catch 22 of sorts and asking a very logical question. If the NLRA was not in place today, how would the rights of employees be protected? Wouldn’t the same situation of exist that did in 1935. The easiest answer I could come up with is that it would still be necessary but perhaps would need some revamping. For example, based on the recent report regarding inappropriate behavior on the part of the NLRB, action would need to be taken against the very board created under the NLRA. It would be comical if were not true but even the appearance of impropriety makes you scratch your head. The times we live in have changed. I believe employees of today are more capable today standing up for their rights than years ago. To a detriment in some ways, we are a far more litigious society and employees would not hesitate to utilize that avenue as a way of protecting their rights. The impact that unions have on employees would also need to be addressed by the NLRA today. If it had to be done all over again I’m sure the NLRA would have tighter control on unions and their power. For me the bottom line is that the rights of the employee need to be protected but that job should be entrusted to them.

References
Holley, Jennings, Wolters (2011) The Labor Relations Process Ch. 6-9

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/12/13/congressional-report-accuses-nlrb-advocating-for-big-labor/
Cabot, S. (1997). “How to avoid a union” Retrieved from: https://www.nlrb.gov/national-labor-relations-act
Karon, J. (2010). “Discipline and Grievance”. Retrieved from: http://www.d.umn.edu/umdhr/Policies/grievance.html
Lerners, S. (2002). Labor Notes “Three steps to reorganizing and rebuilding the labor movement”. Retrieved from: http://labornotes.org/node/575
“Big Labor’s Special Privileges” (n.d.). Retrieved from: http://www.nrtw.org/d/big_labor_special_privileges.htm
Sloan, A. & Witney, F. (2011). Labor Relations, 13th Edition. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Learning Solutions.
Thorpe, J. (2008). Employment Law: Unfair treatment at work. Retrieved from: http://www.helium.com/items/801741-employment-law-unfair-treatment-at-work

| |
| |
| |
| |