With some frequency, lower federal courts and the National Labor Relations Board have upheld lockouts by employers.. Unfair Labor Practices An unfair labor practice is any action or stat
Trang 1their differences and negotiate an employment contract, the parties may use different types of pressure to produce an agreement, including boycotts, strikes, the carrying of signs and banners, picketing, and lockouts
A labor boycott is any type of union action that seeks to reduce or stop public patronage of
a business It is a refusal to purchase from or to handle the products of a particular employer
Employees may legally exert economic pressure
on their employer through a boycott, so long as they act peacefully But a union is forbidden to engage in a secondary boycott For example, if
a union’s primary dispute is with a hardware manufacturer, it may not picket or use other methods to get the employees of a hardware store, who are neutral or secondary parties, to stage a strike at the store in order to force it to cease handling the manufacturer’s products
A strike is a concerted refusal of employees
to perform work that they have been assigned,
in order to force the employer to grant concessions that the employees have demanded
The right of employees to strike is protected by the courts A lawful strike must be conducted in
an orderly manner and may not be used as a shield for violence or crime Intimidation and coercion in the course of a strike are unlawful
The peaceful carrying of signs and banners advertising a labor dispute is ordinarily a lawful means to publicize employees’ grievances against an employer
Picketing consists of posting one or more union members at the site of a strike or boycott,
in order to interfere with a particular employ-er’s business or to influence the public against patronizing that employer It can be reasonably regulated Lawful picketing is peaceful and honest The use of force, intimidation, or coercion on a picket line is not constitutionally protected activity In addition, employees are not acting within their rights when they seize any part of the employer’s property
A lockout is an employer’s refusal to admit employees to the workplace, in order to gain a concession from them In American Ship Building Co v NLRB, 380 U.S 300, 85 S Ct
955, 13 L Ed 2d 855 (1965), the U.S Supreme Court upheld the right of an employer to lock out employees if the intent is to promote the company’s bargaining position and not to destroy the collective bargaining process or the union
With some frequency, lower federal courts and the National Labor Relations Board have upheld lockouts by employers In Local 702, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers v NLRB, 215 F.3d 11 (D.C Cir 2000), the U.S Court of Appeals upheld aRULINGby the NLRB finding that an employer’s lockout did not violate the NLRA Employees of the union in the case resorted to“inside game” tactics, where the employees refused to work voluntary overtime and adhered strictly to company rules
to such an extent that it slowed the company’s productivity The union began using this strategy during labor negotiations with the company The company imposed a lockout of the employees in order to facilitate the negotia-tions and to counter the effects of the union’s strategy The appellate court, in upholding a decision by the NLRB, found that the employer had legitimate and substantial business justifi-cations for the lockout and that the union had not proven that the employer had acted with an improper motive in initiating the lockout
Unfair Labor Practices
An unfair labor practice is any action or statement by an employer that interferes with, restrains, or coerces employees in their exercise
of the right to organize and conduct collective bargaining Such interference, restraint, or coer-cion can arise through threats, promises, or offers to employees
An unfair labor practice can occur during collective bargaining In Auciello Iron Works v NLRB, 517 U.S 781, 116 S Ct 1754, 135 L Ed 2d 64 (1996), the U.S Supreme Court upheld
an NLRB ruling that the employer had com-mitted an unfair labor practice After the union accepted one of the employer’s collective bar-gaining proposals, the employer disavowed the agreement because of good faith doubts about whether the union still commanded a majority
of the employees The Court reasoned that the employer’s doubts arose from facts that the employer had known about before the union had accepted its contract offer
Labor laws are not intended to interfere with an employer’s normal exercise of discre-tion in hiring and firing employees In general,
an employer may hire employees based on their individual merit, with no regard to union affiliation Refusal to hire an applicant owing
to affiliation with a LABOR UNION is an unfair labor practice
Trang 2The motive of an employer in discharging
an employee may be a controlling factor in
determining whether the discharge is an unfair
labor practice An employer’s history of
anti-union bias is an extremely important factor in
ascertaining the motive for discharge of an
employee An employer may discharge an
employee on various grounds without being
guilty of an unfair labor practice Such grounds
include misconduct, unlawful activity, disloyalty,
and termination of the business operation In
addition, inefficiency, disobedience, or
insub-ordination is proper grounds for dismissal,
provided the discharge is not motivated by the
employer’s reaction to union activity Firing an
employee based on union activity or
member-ship is an unfair labor practice Furthermore,
the filing of unfair labor practice charges or the
giving of testimony in a case based on such
charges does not warrant dismissal
In general, an unfair labor practice exists
when an employer contributes financial or any
other support to a labor organization An
employer must, therefore, remain neutral
be-tween competing unions It is also an unfair
labor practice for an employer to dominate or
interfere with the formation or administration
of any labor organization
A union commits an unfair labor practice
when it causes, or attempts to cause, an
employer to hire, discharge, or discriminate
against an employee for the purpose of
encouraging or discouraging union activity
The same is true when a union restrains or
coerces employees in the exercise of their rights
to self-organize; to form, join, or assist labor
unions; to bargain collectively; or to refrain
from any of these activities The refusal of a
labor organization to bargain collectively or to
execute a formal document embodying
agree-ment with an employer is another unfair labor
practice
Contract Enforcement and Contract
Disputes
Almost every collective bargaining agreement in
the United States contains a GRIEVANCE
PROCE-DURE In the grievance procedure, the union and
the employer try to settle any disputes over the
meaning or application of the contract by
themselves If the parties fail, they may invoke
arbitration, a procedure that typically calls for
referring the issue to an impartial third party for
a final and binding determination
Grievance provisions of a collective bargain-ing agreement govern the procedure to be followed to settle on-the-job disputes Typical grievance procedures generally consist of at least three steps: (1) an employee and his or her union steward present their complaint orally to the supervisor, who has the power to settle it;
(2) in the event that the matter is not settled at that stage, it is reduced to writing, and the union steward and union officers confer with management; (3) if no agreement is reached, the aggrieved employee may submit the matter
to arbitration, which will be binding on all parties
The arbitration of disputes under a collec-tive bargaining agreement is a matter of contract, and the parties to it may delineate the scope of their arbitration clause Common grievances settled under arbitration clauses include disputes over seniority rights, employee discipline, pension orWELFARE benefits, rates of pay, and hours of work Ordinarily, the issue
of whether a strike or lockout is a breach of an agreement is a proper subject for arbitration
The vast majority of union-employer con-tract disputes are resolved in a grievance procedure, and most of the rest are disposed of routinely through arbitration Occasionally, a party will resist arbitration or will refuse to comply with an arbitrator’s award In such a case, section 301 of the Taft-Hartley Act authorizes a suit in federal court to enforce the agreement to arbitrate or the arbitrator’s award
The federal courts have enforced a pro-arbitration policy in labor contracts If a union strikes over a grievance it could have arbitrated, the employer may secure an injunction against the strike under section 301 of the Taft-Hartley Act, even though ordinarily the Norris-LaGuardia Act prevents the federal courts from enjoining strikes by labor unions
Regulation of Unions
The Landrum-Griffin Act contains provisions that regulate how labor unions conduct their internal affairs These provisions seek to prevent union corruption and to guarantee to union members that unions will be run democratically
The act provides a BILL OF RIGHTS for union
LABOR LAW 199
Trang 3members, requires certain financial disclosures
by unions, prescribes procedures for the election of union officers, and provides civil and criminal remedies for financial abuses by union officers
Employees who are not union members can
be required to paid a portion of the union dues
as a condition of their employment These contributions are called “service fees.” Since
1956 the Supreme Court has issued rulings on what service fees may be charged to nonmem-bers without violating the FIRST AMENDMENT rights of nonmembers The general approach
to analyzing the components of a service fee has been to exempt from the fee political or ideological activities with which the nonmem-bers might disagree The Court determined that the payment of the service fee furthered the
government’s interest in preventing free-riding
by nonmembers who benefit from the union’s collective bargaining actions and in preserv-ing peaceful labor relations In Locke v Karass, U.S. , 129 S.Ct 798, L.Ed.2d (2009), the Court ruled that a union could charge nonmembers for “national litigation” expenses as long as the litigation was of the type that would be chargeable if the litigation were local and the charge were reciprocal in nature National litigation expenses are those that do not directly benefit the local union The Court concluded that the fee could be collected if the subject-matter of the litigation were related to collective bargaining and the arrangement were reciprocal In this context, reciprocal would mean that the local’s payment to the national organization was for services “that may
Reinventing the Workplace:
Improving Quality, or Creating Company (Sham) Unions?
Foreign competition, technological
change, and concerns about
declin-ing productivity have led to significant
modifications in the way many U.S
businesses manage their affairs These
changes, which have been championed
by a long list of management consultants,
have appeared under numerous labels,
including quality circles and total quality
management (TQM) All of these
approaches emphasize that the goal of a
business is to achieve a high standard of
quality in goods manufactured or
ser-vices provided To meet this quality goal,
businesses have moved away from
top-down management, substituting a team
approach Traditional management
per-sonnel and line-level workers meet in
committees to discuss and resolve issues
within the company concerning product,
service, and the way work is organized
The advocates of teamwork and
quality circles have hit a legal brick wall
in the National Labor Relations Act of
1935 (NLRA) (29 U.S.C.A § 151 et
seq.) Under the NLRA, sections 2(5) and
8(A)(2), employers are forbidden to
create employer-dominated company unions In Electromation, 309 N.L.R.B
990 (1992), theNATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD(NLRB) ruled that Electromation,
a nonunion company, could not sponsor
an “action committee” because that committee was, under the NLRA provi-sions, a labor organization Additional cases have confirmed the NLRB’s posi-tion on this issue
Proponents of quality circles and teamwork argue that the NLRA is an antiquated set of laws, based on a period
of U.S history when businesses used every tool at their disposal to subvert unions and union organization The adversarial posture of labor and manage-ment may have made sense in the past, this argument goes, but it is counterpro-ductive in an economy that must adapt quickly to world market forces The most radical proposal by critics of the NLRB’s position on this issue is to abolish the NLRA altogether
More moderate proponents argue instead for changes in the NLRA to permit committees, teams, and more of
what they call workplace democracy They point out that with the steady decline of union membership and blue-collar jobs, traditional labor-management relations have become irrelevant They note that white-collar workers, who now dominate the U.S economy, are less likely to join a
LABOR UNION Therefore, worker morale and job satisfaction are better when employees are included in the decision-making process of a business
Proponents of quality circles also believe that a better educated workforce
is capable of making informed decisions about its relations with employers They assert that the days of the employer’s being an absolute sovereign are over It is more productive to allow nonunion employees to organize within the com-pany based on committees and circles These workers are entitled to the same type of participatory democracy found in labor unions
Most proponents would give employees the chance to make up their own mind about their work environ-ment If a union successfully wins over
Trang 4ultimately inure to the benefit of the members
of the local union.”
Unions have also had to confront unfriendly
state governments In 2003 the Idaho
Legisla-ture passed a law prohibiting state and local
governments from making union payroll
deductions for political activities These
activi-ties included “electoral activities, independent
expenditures, or expenditures made to any
candidate, political party, political action
com-mittee or in support or against any ballot
measure.” Unions in Idaho objected to this
change, as it would make the collection of these
types of dues very difficult and costly In Ysursa
v Pocatello Education Association, U.S. , 129
S.Ct 1093, L.Ed.2d (2009), the U.S
Supreme Court upheld the state law The Court
ruled that Idaho was under no obligation to aid
the unions in their political activities and the state’s decision not to do so was not “an abridgment of the union’s speech.”
Changing Labor-Management Relations
For most of the history of U.S labor-manage-ment relations, employers and labor unions have seen each other as adversaries Federal labor law has been shaped by this adversarial relationship, yet shifts in the structure of the U.S economy have led to more cooperation In the 1980s unions agreed to givebacks, in which employees agree to reduced wages and benefits
in return for job security, particularly in the manufacturing industries In response, employ-ers have given unions a larger voice in the allocation of jobs and in the work environment itself
enough employees to be certified as the
legalBARGAINING AGENT, that would
indi-cate dissatisfaction with the employer
and would be an acceptable outcome
These proponents would object to
unions filing complaints with the NLRB
over company committees where the
employees have rejected union
represen-tation in the past As long as employees
want to participate in a company
com-mittee or circle, they should be permitted
to do so
Proponents argue that the bar on
these types of workplace organizational
innovations hurts workers These
inno-vations give employees more autonomy
to plan work schedules, meet deadlines,
operate equipment, make repairs, and
handle health and safety issues In the
past an employee could suggest a change
to management but then had to stand
back and observe whether the change
took place In today’s workplace an
employee wants to implement as well as
suggest improvements
Finally, proponents note that in
union-organized companies unions are
free to negotiate the participation of
employees in teams and quality circles
They suggest that it is unfair to restrict
nonunion employees from electing to
participate in similar business
manage-ment ventures
The U.S labor movement has resisted vigorously the introduction of employee involvement programs by management in both union and nonunion environments
Labor union leadership views the intro-duction of employer-sponsored commit-tees as a return to the past and as a way of undercutting the ability of unions to organize white-collar workers
Opponents point out the sordid history of U.S labor relations prior to the passage of the NLRA in 1935
Company-sponsored unions were put forward as a way to resolve disputes over wages, hours, and other conditions of employment Employees believed that these unions acted in GOOD FAITH to negotiate a contract with management
In reality, these organizations were sham unions, dominated by the employer The employers would put company spies in them to monitor what was discussed
Employees were either bought off or fired if they proved too effective in their union duties
Opponents argue that the NRLA is preserving the independence of labor unions Without its decisions employers
of nonunion employees would use TQM, quality circles, and other buzzwords to promote a nonunion status that would place employees at a disadvantage
Employees will quite likely be intimidated
in employer-organized groups, and un-able to raise or meaningfully discuss certain issues that management does not want to hear Without a COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT negotiated by a union, opponents maintain, employees will not have job security or promotion protection
Opponents also question who makes the decisions in these groups Though the rhetoric suggests empowerment of employees, employee committees are purely advisory, and the employer retains the authority to decide all issues In addition, because management creates these committees, management can dis-solve them at any time The inequality
of power within a nonunion business dictates that the employer can do whatever management wants, regardless
of a recommendation by an employee committee
The NLRA has placed a barrier to new models of business organization The distrust of labor unions and their difficulty in making inroads with white-collar workers reconfirms to the unions the need for an adversarial posture with management Those who seek funda-mental change in the way U.S business operates believe that the NLRA must be amended to accommodate a major shift
in economic organization
LABOR LAW 201
Trang 5When economic hardships fall on employ-ers, these employers must often negotiate concessions with employees and the unions representing employees in order to save their businesses After theSEPTEMBER 11TH ATTACKSin
2001, for instance, many airlines in the United States suffered devastating economic down-turns Many of these airlines were forced to negotiate concessions from unions representing airline employees in order to avoidBANKRUPTCY When the U.S economy went into a steep decline in the fall of 2008, the three major U.S
automakers, General Motors, Ford, and Chrys-ler, suffered a precipitous drop in sales General Motors and Chrysler secured multibillion-dollar loans from the federal government, and as a condition, the unions had to agree
to givebacks for current and retired union members
Since the 1980s, innovations in corporate management that advocate teamwork, quality circles, and total quality management (TQM) have led to legal disputes and questions about the continued vitality of the adversarial model
of labor-management relations Under the NLRA, sections 2(5) and 8(A)(2), employers are prohibited from creating employer-dominated company unions This prohibition was included in the original NLRA because employers had created sham unions that promised representation for workers but in fact toed the company line
With the beginning of TQM and quality circles in the late 1980s, some employers have attempted to reinvent the workplace by empow-ering all levels of workers to help make decisions, instead of delegating this task to a set of managers The creation of quality circles and employee committees has run afoul of the NLRA provision against employer-created unions In Electromation, 309 N.L.R.B 990 (1992), the board held that the company’s
“action committee” was a labor organization involved with and dominated by the company,
in violation of sections 2(5) and 8(A)(2)
Electromation was a nonunion company In
E I du Pont de Nemours & Co., 311 N.L.R.B
893 (1993), the board considered identical issues in a union-organized company The board ruled that a series of safety and fitness committees created by du Pont were illegal under the NLRA These cases illustrate the skepticism of some unions about the true intentions of management and the difficulty
in adjusting to change in some areas of labor law
FURTHER READINGS Covington, Robert and Decker, Kurt 2002.Employment Law
in a Nutshell 2d ed Saint Paul, Minn.: West Group Gould, William 2004.A Primer on American Labor Law 4th
ed Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Jasper, Margaret C 2002 Labor Law Dobbs Ferry, N.Y.: Oceana.
Lareau, N Peter, et al 2003 Labor and Employment Law Conklin, N.Y.: Matthew Bender.
Leslie, Douglas 2000 Labor Law in a Nutshell.4th ed Saint Paul, Minn.: West Group.
CROSS REFERENCES Administrative Agency; Bargaining Agent; Boycott; Em-ployment Law; Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service; Landrum-Griffin Act; Norris-Laguardia Act; Taft-Hartley Act; Unfair Labor Practice.
LABOR UNION
An association, combination, or organization of employees who band together to secure favorable wages, improved working conditions, and better work hours, and to resolve grievances against employers
The history of labor unions in the United States has much to do with changes in technology and the development of capitalism Although labor unions can be compared to European merchant and craft guilds of the Middle Ages, they arose with the factory system and the Industrial Revolution of the nineteenth century
The first efforts to organize employees were met with fierce resistance by employers The U.S legal system played a part in this resistance In Commonwealth v Pullis (Phila Mayor’s Ct 1806), generally known as the Philadelphia Cordwainers’ case, bootmakers and shoemakers
of Philadelphia were indicted as a combination for conspiring to raise their wages The prosecu-tion argued that the common-law doctrine of criminal conspiracy applied The jury agreed that the union was illegal, and the defendants were fined From that case came the labor conspiracy doctrine, which held that collective (as distin-guished from individual) bargaining would interfere with the natural operation of the marketplace, raise wages to artificially high levels, and destroy competition This early resistance to unions led to an adversarial relationship between unions and employers
Trang 6Between 1806 and 1842 the labor conspiracy
doctrine was applied in a handful of cases
Then, during the 1840s, U.S courts began to
question the doctrine The most important case
in this regard was Commonwealth v Hunt, 45
Mass (4 Met.) 11, 38 A.M Dec 346 (Mass
1842), in which Chief Justice LEMUEL SHAW set
aside an indictment of members of the
boot-makers’ union for conspiracy Shaw agreed with
employers that competition was vital to the
economy but concluded that unions were one
way of stimulating competition As long as the
methods they used were legal, unions were free
to seek concessions from employers By the end
of the nineteenth century, courts generally held
that strikes for higher wages or shorter
work-days were legal
Despite the decline of the labor conspiracy
theory, unions faced other legal challenges to
their existence The labor injunction and
prosecution under antitrust laws became
pow-erful weapons for employers who were involved
in labor disputes In an 1896 case, Vegelahn v
Guntner, 167 Mass 92, 44 N.E 1077, the
highest court in Massachusetts upheld an
injunction that forbade peaceful picketing
outside the employer’s premises
The first national labor federation to remain
active for more than a few years was the Noble
Order of the Knights of Labor It was
estab-lished in 1869 and had set as goals the
eight-hour workday, equal pay for equal work, and
the abolition of child labor The Knights of
Labor grew to 700,000 members by 1886 but
went into decline that year with a series of failed
strikes By 1900 it had disappeared
Labor unions nevertheless gained strength
in 1886 with the formation of the American
Federation of Labor (AFL) Composed of
25 national trade unions and numbering over
316,000 members, the AFL was a loose
CONFEDERATION of autonomous unions, each
with exclusive rights to deal with the workers
and employers in its own field The AFL
concentrated on pursuing achievable goals such
as higher wages and shorter hours, and it
renounced identification with any political party
or movement Members were encouraged to
support politicians who were friendly to labor,
whatever their party affiliation
Following the passage of theSHERMAN ANTI
-TRUST ACT in 1890 (15 U.S.C.A §§ 1 et seq.),
which prohibited combinations in restraint of
trade, courts punished and enjoined labor practices that were considered wrongful In the Danbury Hatters case (Loewe v Lawlor, 208 U.S 274, 28 S Ct 301, 52 L Ed 488 [1908]), the U.S Supreme Court upheld the application
of the act to an appeal that involved a labor publication for a general boycott of named nonunion employers In 1911, in Gompers v
Buck’s Stove & Range Co., 221 U.S 418, 31 S Ct
492, 55 L Ed 797, the Court upheld an injunction against a union that had placed the name of the employer on the AFL “We Don’t Patronize” list, which was a call for a boycott of the employer
Opposition to labor unions was particularly intense during the late nineteenth century
Several unsuccessful strikes in the 1890s dem-onstrated the power of companies to crush unions In 1892, steelworkers struck against the Carnegie Steel Company’s Homestead, Penn-sylvania, plant The company hired private guards to protect the plant, but violence broke out The strike failed, and most of the workers quit the union and returned to work In 1894 members of the American Railway Union struck the Pullman Palace Car Company, which made railroad cars The federal government sent in troops to end the strike
Despite these setbacks, labor unions grad-ually increased their political power at the
Median Usual Weekly Earnings, by Union Affiliation, in 2008
Earnings (in dollars)
$722
$886
$880
$691
Union membersa
Represented
by unions b
Not represented
by unions
a Members of a labor union or an employee association similar to a labor union.
b Members of a labor union or an employee association similar to a union as well as workers who report no union affiliation but whose jobs are covered by a union or an employee association contract
SOURCE: U.S Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Total
ILLUSTRATION BY GGS CREATIVE RESOURCES REPRODUCED BY PERMISSION OF GALE,
A PART OF CENGAGE LEARNING.
LABOR UNION 203
Trang 7federal level In 1914 Congress enacted the CLAYTON ACT, sections 6 (15 U.S.C.A § 7) and
20 (29 U.S.C.A § 52), declaring that human labor was not to be considered an article of commerce and that the existence of unions was not to be considered a violation of antitrust laws In addition, the act prohibited federal courts from issuing injunctions in labor disputes except to prevent IRREPARABLE INJURY to property This prohibition was absolute when peaceful picketing and boycotts were involved
Employers had better success fighting unions by using the so-called yellow-dog contract This agreement required a prospective employee to state that he or she was not a member of a union and would not become one
Although some states enacted laws that pro-hibited employers from requiring employees to sign this type of contract, the U.S Supreme Court declared such statutes unconstitutional as
an infringement of freedom of contract (Cop-page v Kansas, 236 U.S 1, 35 S Ct 240, 59 L
Ed 441[1915])
By 1920 trade unions had more than five million members During the 1920s, however, the trade union movement suffered a decline, precipitated in part by a severe economic depression in 1921-22 Unemployment rose, and competition for jobs became intense By
1929 union membership had dropped to 3.5 million
The Great Depression of the 1930s caused more unemployment and a further decline in union membership Unions responded with numerous strikes, but few were successful
Despite these reverses, the legal position of unions was enhanced during the 1930s In
1932 Congress passed theNORRIS-LAGUARDIA ACT (29 U.S.C.A §§ 101 et seq.), which declared yellow-dog contracts to be contrary to public policy and stringently limited the power of federal courts to issue injunctions in labor disputes In cases in which an injunction still might be issued, the act imposed strict procedural limitations and safeguards in order to prevent more instances of abuses by the courts The Norris-LaGuardia Act effec-tively ended “government by injunction” and has remained a FUNDAMENTAL LAW in labor disputes
During the 1930s the AFL itself was in turmoil over the aspirations of the labor
movement The trade unions that dominated the AFL were composed of skilled workers who opposed organizing the unskilled or semiskilled workers on the manufacturing production line Several unions rebelled at this refusal to organize and formed the Committee for Industrial Organization (CIO) The CIO aggressively organized millions of workers who labored in automobile, steel, and rubber plants In 1938, unhappy with this effort, the AFL expelled the unions that formed the CIO The CIO then formed its own organization, changed its name to Congress of Industrial Organizations, and elected John L Lewis, of the United Mine Workers, as its first president
U.S labor relations were dramatically altered in 1935 with the passage of the National Labor Relations Act, also known as the WAGNER ACT (29 U.S.C.A §§ 151 et seq.) For the first time, labor unions were given legal rights and powers under federal law The act guaranteed the right of COLLECTIVE BARGAIN-ING, free from employer domination or influ-ence It made it an unfair labor practice for an employer to interfere with employees in the exercise of their right to bargain collectively; to interfere with or to influence unions; to discriminate in hiring or firing because of an employee’s union membership; to discrimi-nate against an employee who avails himself or herself of legal rights; or to refuse to bargain collectively
The Wagner Act also established theNATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, which has the power to investigate employees’ complaints and to issue cease and desist orders If an employer were to defy such an order, the board may ask a federal court of appeals for an enforcement order, or it could ask the court to review the cease-and-desist order The board could conduct elections
to determine which union should represent the employees in a bargaining unit and certify the union as their agent, and it could designate the bargaining unit
The heart of the Wagner Act was section 7 (29 U.S.C.A § 157), which stated the public policy that workers have the right to engage in self-organization, in collective bargaining, and
in concerted activities in support of self-organization and collective bargaining Armed with these rights, unions grew in membership and strength during the late 1930s and through WORLD WAR II
Trang 8A number of states reacted negatively to
these legal changes by enacting laws that sought
to restrict and lessen the power of unions An
antiunion backlash developed afterWORLD WAR II,
when strikes against the automobile industry
and other large corporations reached record
numbers This reaction culminated in the
passage of theLABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS ACT
of 1947, also known as theTAFT-HARTLEY ACT(29
U.S.C.A §§ 141 et seq.) The Taft-Hartley Act
amended section 7 of the Wagner Act, affirming
the rights that had been formulated in 1935 but
providing that workers shall have the right to
refrain from any of the listed activities Whereas
the Wagner Act listed only employers’ unfair
labor practices, Taft-Hartley added unions’
unfair labor practices The act created the
FEDERAL MEDIATION AND CONCILIATION SERVICE,
which provides a method for addressing strikes
that create a national emergency It also banned
theCLOSED SHOP, which requires an employer to
hire only union members and to discharge any
employee who drops union membership
Taft-Hartley effectively replaced the Wagner Act
as the basic federal statute regulating labor
relations
In 1955 the AFL and CIO merged into a
single organization, the AFL-CIO The staunchly
anti-communist AFL agreed to the merger only
after the CIO had purged its organization of
communists and supporters of communist
ideals George Meany was appointed the first
president of the new organization
In 1959 Congress enacted the Labor
Man-agement Reporting and Disclosure Act, also
known as theLANDRUM-GRIFFIN ACT(29 U.S.C.A
§§ 401 et seq.) Title VII of the act contains
many amendments to the Taft-Hartley Act, of
which two are especially important First,
Landrum-Griffin made peaceful picketing of
organizational or recognitional objectives illegal
under certain circumstances Second, it closed
loopholes in the provisions of Taft-Hartley that
forbadesecondary boycotts
Other sections of Landrum-Griffin
provid-ed for a BILL OF RIGHTS for union members,
financial disclosure requirements for unions
and their officers, and safeguards in union
elections All of these matters concerned
internal union practices, strongly suggesting
that union corruption had become a problem
In fact, a 1957 congressional investigation of
the Teamsters union had uncovered
widespread corruption and had much to do with the introduction of these new statutory provisions
Labor unions continued to thrive in the 1960s, as a robust economy relied on a large manufacturing industry to maintain growth
Although no comprehensive union legislation was enacted during that decade, theCIVIL RIGHTS Act of 1964, as amended by the Equal Employ-ment Opportunity Act of 1972 (42 U.S.C.A §§
2000a et seq.), made an important contribution
to national labor policy The act declared it an unfair labor practice for an employer or union
to discriminate against a person by reason of race, RELIGION, color, sex, or national origin
Administration of this provision is vested in the EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION (EEOC) Under the Civil Rights Act, if the EEOC is unable to achieve voluntary compli-ance, the person allegingdiscrimination is au-thorized to bring aCIVIL ACTIONin federal district court The 1972 amendment gave the EEOC the right to bring such an action The effect of the law has been to desegregate many trade unions that maintained an all-white member-ship policy
The union movement considerably im-proved working conditions for migrant workers
in the late 1960s and the 1970s The United Farm Workers, under the leadership of CESAR CHAVEZ, led successful boycotts and strikes against California growers, most notably against the wine-grape growers
Many unions suffered, however, with an economic downturn in the 1970s and 1980s, and with the decline of well-paying manufacturing jobs Automation of industrial processes re-duced the number of workers who were required on assembly lines In addition, many U.S companies moved either to states that did not have a strong union background or to developing countries where labor costs were significantly lower Union members became more concerned about job security than about higher wages, particularly in the manufacturing industry, and they agreed to concede salary and benefit givebacks In return, unions sought greater labor-management cooperation and a larger voice in the allocation of jobs and in the work environment
Union membership has also declined in response to a shift from blue-collar manufactur-ing jobs to white-collar service and technology
LABOR UNION 205
Trang 9jobs By the end of 2002 just 13.2 percent of the U.S workforce claimed union member-ship, compared with a high of 34.7 percent in 1954
FURTHER READINGS Bagchi, Aditi 2003 “Unions and the Duty of Good Faith
In Employment Contracts ” Yale Law Journal 112 (May).
Labor Department, Bureau of Labor Statistics Web site.
Available online at http://www.bls.gov (accessed August
5, 2009).
Lichtenstein, Nelson 2003 State of the Union: A Century
of American Labor Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ.
Press.
CROSS REFERENCES Child Labor Laws; Craft Union; Employment Law; Hoffa, James Riddle; Labor Law; Right-To-Work Laws.
LACHES
A defense to an equitable action, that bars recovery by the plaintiff because of the plaintiff’s undue delay in seeking relief
Laches is a defense to a proceeding in which
aPLAINTIFFseeks equitable relief Cases in equity are distinguished from cases at law by the type
of remedy, or judicial relief, sought by the plaintiff Generally, law cases involve a problem that can be solved by the payment of monetary damages Equity cases involve remedies directed
by the court against a party
Types of equitable relief include injunction, where the court orders a party to do or not to
do something; declaratory relief, where the court declares the rights of the two parties to
a controversy; and accounting, where the court orders a detailed written statement of money owed, paid, and held Courts have complete discretion in equity, and weigh equitable principles against the facts of the case to determine whether relief is warranted
The rules of equity are built on a series of legal maxims, which serve as broad statements
of principle, the truth and reasonableness of which are self-evident The basis of equity is contained in the maxim“Equity will not suffer
an injustice.” Other maxims present reasons for not granting equitable relief Laches is one such defense
Laches is based on the legal maxim“Equity aids the vigilant, not those who slumber on their rights.” Laches recognizes that a party to
an action can lose evidence, witnesses, and a fair chance to defend himself or herself after the passage of time from the date the wrong was committed If the defendant can show dis-advantages because for a long time he or she relied on the fact that no lawsuit would be started, then the case should be dismissed in the interests of justice
The law encourages a speedy resolution for every dispute Cases in law are governed by statutes of limitations, which are laws that determine how long a person has to file a lawsuit before the right to sue expires Different types of injuries (e.g., tort and contract) have different time periods in which to file a lawsuit Laches is the equitable equivalent of statutes of limitations However, unlike statutes of limita-tions, laches leaves it up to the court to determine, based on the unique facts of the case, whether a plaintiff has waited too long to seek relief
Real estate boundary disputes are resolved
in equity and may involve laches For instance,
if a person starts to build a garage that extends beyond the boundary line and into a neighbor’s property, and the neighbor immediately files a suit in equity and asks the court to issue an injunction to stop the construction, the neigh-bor will likely prevail However, if the neighneigh-bor observes the construction of the garage on her property and does not file suit until the garage is completed, the defendant may plead laches, arguing that the neighbor had ample time to protect her property rights before the construction was completed, and the court may find it unfair to order that the garage be torn down
The laches defense, like most of equity law,
is a general concept containing many variations
on the maxim Phrases used to describe laches include “delay that works to the disadvantage
of another,” “inexcusable delay coupled with prejudice to the party raising the defense,”
“failure to assert rights,” “lack of diligence,” and
“neglect or omission to assert a right.”
vLAMAR, JOSEPH RUCKER Joseph Rucker Lamar served as an associate justice of the U.S Supreme Court from 1911 to
1916 Unlike many appointees to the Court, Lamar was not selected on the basis of a long political career As an attorney and Georgia
Trang 10Supreme Court judge, Lamar was recognized
for his legal abilities
Lamar was born in Ruckersville, Georgia, on
October 14, 1857 His wealthy family provided
generations of leadership in the community,
and included Lucius Q C Lamar, who served as
an associate justice of the U.S Supreme Court
from 1888 to 1893
Lamar attended the University of Georgia
and graduated from Bethany College in West
Virginia in 1877 He then attended Washington
and Lee Law School and was admitted to the
Georgia bar in 1878 From 1880 to 1903, Lamar
practiced law in Augusta, Georgia He often
represented corporations, including railroads,
and argued several cases before the U.S
Supreme Court
He served in the Georgia House of
Repre-sentatives from 1886 to 1889 His legal abilities
were used more directly when he was appointed
to serve on a commission revising the Georgia
code of state laws CODIFICATION is a process of
revising and reorganizing legislative laws into a
coherent whole Lamar mastered the highly
technical process and revised the civil-law
volume himself The code was approved by
the legislature in 1895
In 1903 he was appointed to the Georgia
Supreme Court He resigned in 1905 to return
to his law practice
Lamar was surprised when President
WIL-LIAM HOWARD TAFT, a Republican, appointed him
to the U.S Supreme Court in 1910 Lamar had
met Taft the year before when the president was
visiting Augusta, but was not well acquainted
with him or his circle In fact, Democrat
WOODROW WILSON, who became president in
1912, was a childhood friend of Lamar’s
During Lamar’s brief term on the Court, interstate commerce and the growth of federal regulatory and administrative power were prime topics of legal dispute Lamar adhered to the majority view in most cases He wrote the majority opinion in United States v Grimaud,
220 U.S 506, 31 S Ct 480, 55 L Ed 563 (1911), which expanded the authority of the EXECUTIVE BRANCHto add details deliberately left open by congressional legislation Lamar held that it was not an unconstitutional delegation
of legislative power to allow administrators to exercise their discretion in filling in the details
of laws
Lamar died January 2, 1916, in Washington, D.C
❖
1861–65 U.S Civil War
1914–18 World War I
1857 Born,
Ruckersville,
Ga.
◆◆
1877 Graduated from Bethany College (W Va.)
1878 Admitted to Ga bar
1880–1903 Worked in private practice in Augusta, Ga.
1886–89 Served in Georgia House
◆
1895 Georgia legislature approved new Georgia code of state laws, which Lamar helped revise
1903–05 Served
on Georgia Supreme Court
1911 Wrote majority
opinion in United States v Grimaud 1910–16
Served on U.S.
Supreme Court
1916 Died, Washington, D.C.
Joseph R Lamar PHOTOGRAPH BY JULIAN LAMAR COLLECTION OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES