Labor Reform Act of 1977

Last updated

The Labor Reform Act of 1977 was a proposed legislative act that would have amended the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). The bill was introduced as H.R. 8410 in the U.S. House of Representatives and after passing through the House, it entered the U.S. Senate as S. 2467. In the Senate, the Act underwent amendments before failing to pass by a mere two votes. [1]

Contents

The bill was presented as a means of streamlining the processes of and eliminating delays within the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). [2] Opponents to the bill argued the Act would "upset what they believed to be a delicate balance in Federal policy towards labor-management relations, and was simply an effort to help unions increase their membership and bargaining power." [3]

Background

In 1977, President Carter, in a letter to Congress, outlined what he saw were the shortfalls of the NLRB in administering the nation's labor laws. [4] President Carter noted that unnecessary delays "are the most serious problem," followed by weak remedies offered by the NLRB, which ultimately injures the worker's ability to choose whether they want union representation and "den[ies] employers the predictability they too need from the labor laws." [4]

In that same letter, President Carter declared three goals the labor law reforms were designed to meet. His labor law reforms aimed to: "make the NLRB procedures fairer, prompter, and more predictable... protect the rights of labor and management by strengthening NLRB sanctions against those who break the law..." and "preserve the integrity of the Federal contracting process by withholding federal contracts from firms that willfully violate orders from the NLRB and the courts. [4] In order to achieve these goals, President Carter suggested the following changes:

Content

H.R. 8410

The House bill, and its identical Senate counterpart (S. 1883), targeted three areas of the NLRA: procedures by the NLRB; representation elections; and NLRB remedies.

In seeking to improve NLRB procedures, the Act would have: increased the NLRB to seven members from five; established a summary affirmance process; added discriminatory discharges to the list of unfair labor practices that are given priority treatment by the NLRB; and placed a thirty-day deadline on NLRB decisions before those decisions could not be appealed. [5] [2] By increasing the NLRB membership, the Act aimed to have more panels of three members operate at a time and increase the caseload and turnover rate of cases. [2] Summary affirmance procedures would allow the board to affirm an administrative law judge's decision without further elaboration in appropriate cases; the definition of appropriate cases would have been determined by the NLRB. [6] Prioritizing discriminatory discharge cases aimed to lessen the pain suffered by a wrongly fired employee. Providing these cases with priority status would mean that the NLRB would conduct preliminary investigations and if the investigation gives the NLRB "reasonable cause to believe such charge is true... the officer must petition in federal district court for injunctive relief." [7] The thirty day deadline to appeal NLRB decisions would potentially limit the ability for the charged party to be prevented from raising claims once the thirty days expire, preventing delays in the filing of litigation and promoting the effectiveness of the NLRB's orders. [8]

Representation election reform took the form of measures to streamline elections for union representation by reducing delays before elections are held, based on a schedule of how many employees are required to hold that election. [9] Furthermore, the Act would also have required the NLRB make rules and requirements as to which groups of employees are appropriate for collective bargaining or eligible for representation elections. [9]

Additional remedies the NLRB could grant included: "double back pay to workers illegally deprived of employment... swift court injunctions reinstating illegally discharged employees... back pay awards for employees when employers refuse to bargain with employee representatives... and the barring from eligibility for Federal contracts (for three years) persons who willfully violated Board or court orders." [10]

Arguments in Congress

Arguments in Favor of the Act

Generally, the proponents of the Act viewed the labor law reform as a means of making the NLRA more efficient and serve employees and employers better. [3] Proponents also asserted that claims that the Act was one-sided or favored employees and unionization, but rather the Act was "intended to remove the obstacles that... stand in the way of achieving the collective bargaining rights already guaranteed in our labor laws." [11] The efficiency of the NLRB would impact employers just as positively as it would impact employees by resolving disputes that would hamper business. [12]

Arguments Against the Act

Opponents to the Act asserted that the NLRB framework was functional as it existed and the Act would throw out of balance what was already balanced. [13] These amendments to the NLRA would "requir[e] that employers open their premises to professional union organizers... severely penaliz[e] employers" by amending the NLRA to become punitive as opposed to remedial, and "reduc[e] the power of the courts to review Labor Board determinations." [13]

Related Research Articles

The Railway Labor Act is a United States federal law that governs labor relations in the railroad and airline industries. The Act, enacted in 1926 and amended in 1934 and 1936, seeks to substitute bargaining, arbitration, and mediation for strikes to resolve labor disputes. Its provisions were originally enforced under the Board of Mediation, but they were later enforced under a National Mediation Board.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">National Labor Relations Act of 1935</span> 1935 U.S. federal labor law regulating the rights of workers and unions

The National Labor Relations Act of 1935, also known as the Wagner Act, is a foundational statute of United States labor law that guarantees the right of private sector employees to organize into trade unions, engage in collective bargaining, and take collective action such as strikes. Central to the act was a ban on company unions. The act was written by Senator Robert F. Wagner, passed by the 74th United States Congress, and signed into law by President Franklin D. Roosevelt.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Taft–Hartley Act</span> 1947 U.S. federal law regulating labor unions

The Labor Management Relations Act of 1947, better known as the Taft–Hartley Act, is a United States federal law that restricts the activities and power of labor unions. It was enacted by the 80th United States Congress over the veto of President Harry S. Truman, becoming law on June 23, 1947.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">National Labor Relations Board</span> U.S. federal government agency

The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) is an independent agency of the federal government of the United States that enforces U.S. labor law in relation to collective bargaining and unfair labor practices. Under the National Labor Relations Act of 1935, the NLRB has the authority to supervise elections for labor union representation and to investigate and remedy unfair labor practices. Unfair labor practices may involve union-related situations or instances of protected concerted activity.

In labor law, a union shop, also known as a post-entry closed shop, is a form of a union security clause. Under this, the employer agrees to either only hire labor union members or to require that any new employees who are not already union members become members within a certain amount of time. Use of the union shop varies widely from nation to nation, depending on the level of protection given trade unions in general.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">United States labor law</span> US laws on fair pay and conditions, unions, democracy, equality and security at work

United States labor law sets the rights and duties for employees, labor unions, and employers in the US. Labor law's basic aim is to remedy the "inequality of bargaining power" between employees and employers, especially employers "organized in the corporate or other forms of ownership association". Over the 20th century, federal law created minimum social and economic rights, and encouraged state laws to go beyond the minimum to favor employees. The Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 requires a federal minimum wage, currently $7.25 but higher in 29 states and D.C., and discourages working weeks over 40 hours through time-and-a-half overtime pay. There are no federal laws, and few state laws, requiring paid holidays or paid family leave. The Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 creates a limited right to 12 weeks of unpaid leave in larger employers. There is no automatic right to an occupational pension beyond federally guaranteed Social Security, but the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 requires standards of prudent management and good governance if employers agree to provide pensions, health plans or other benefits. The Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 requires employees have a safe system of work.

The National Labor Relations Board, an agency within the United States government, was created in 1935 as part of the National Labor Relations Act. Among the NLRB's chief responsibilities is the holding of elections to permit employees to vote whether they wish to be represented by a particular labor union. Congress amended the Act in 1947 through the Taft–Hartley Act to give workers the ability to decertify an already recognized or certified union as well. This article describes, in a very summary manner, the procedures that the NLRB uses to hold such elections, as well as the circumstances in which a union may obtain the right to represent a group of employees without an election.

An unfair labor practice (ULP) in United States labor law refers to certain actions taken by employers or unions that violate the National Labor Relations Act of 1935 29 U.S.C. § 151–169 and other legislation. Such acts are investigated by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB).

The National Labor Board (NLB) was an independent agency of the United States Government established on August 5, 1933, to handle labor disputes arising under the National Industrial Recovery Act (NIRA).

Card check, also called majority sign-up, is a method for employees to organize into a labor union in which a majority of employees in a bargaining unit sign authorization forms, or "cards", stating they wish to be represented by the union. Since the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) became law in 1935, card check has been an alternative to the National Labor Relations Board's (NLRB) election process. Card check and election are both overseen by the National Labor Relations Board. The difference is that with card sign-up, employees sign authorization cards stating they want a union, the cards are submitted to the NLRB and if more than 50% of the employees submitted cards, the NLRB requires the employer to recognize the union. The NLRA election process is an additional step with the NLRB conducting a secret ballot election after authorization cards are submitted. In both cases the employer never sees the authorization cards or any information that would disclose how individual employees voted.

The Employee Free Choice Act is the name for several legislative bills on US labor law which have been proposed and sometimes introduced into one or both chambers of the U.S. Congress.

NLRB v. J. Weingarten, Inc., 420 U.S. 251 (1975), is a United States labor law case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States. It held that employees in unionized workplaces have the right under the National Labor Relations Act to the presence of a union steward during any management inquiry that the employee reasonably believes may result in discipline.

<i>The Blue Eagle at Work</i> 2005 legal treatise written by Charles J. Morris

The Blue Eagle at Work: Reclaiming Democratic Rights in the American Workplace is a legal treatise written by Charles J. Morris which analyzes collective bargaining under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), the federal statute governing most private sector labor relations in the United States. Published in 2005 by Cornell University Press, the text claims that the NLRA guarantees that employees under that Act have the right to bargain collectively through minority unions—but only on a members-only basis—in workplaces where there is not an established majority union, notwithstanding that the present practice and general understanding of the law is that only majority-union employees are entitled to engage in collective bargaining on an exclusivity basis. Contracts resulting from such minority-union bargaining would apply to union members only, not to other employees.

A whipsaw strike is a strike by a trade union against only one or a few employers in an industry or a multi-employer association at a time. The strike is often of a short duration, and usually recurs during the labor dispute or contract negotiations—hence the name "whipsaw".

NLRB v. Truck Drivers Local 449 , 353 U.S. 87 (1957), is an 8-0 decision by the Supreme Court of the United States in which the Court held that a temporary lockout by a multi-employer bargaining group threatened by a whipsaw strike was lawful under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), as amended by the Taft-Hartley Act.

NLRB v. Mackay Radio & Telegraph Co., 304 U.S. 333 (1938), is a United States labor law case of the Supreme Court of the United States which held that workers who strike remain employees for the purposes of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). The Court granted the relief sought by the National Labor Relations Board, which sought to have the workers reinstated by the employer. However, the decision is much better known today for its obiter dicta in which the Court said that an employer may hire strikebreakers and is not bound to discharge any of them if or when the strike ends.

Paul M. Herzog was an American lawyer, educator, civil servant, and university administrator. He was chairman of the United States National Labor Relations Board from 1945 to 1953.

Communications Workers of America v. Beck, 487 U.S. 735 (1988), is a decision by the United States Supreme Court which held that, in a union security agreement, unions are authorized by statute to collect from non-members only those fees and dues necessary to perform its duties as a collective bargaining representative. The rights identified by the Court in Communications Workers of America v. Beck have since come to be known as "Beck rights," and defining what Beck rights are and how a union must fulfill its duties regarding them is an active area of modern United States labor law.

Golden State Transit Corp v City of Los Angeles, 475 U.S. 608 (1986), is a US labor law case, concerning the scope of federal preemption against state law for labor rights.

A captive audience meeting is a mandatory meeting during working hours, organized by an employer with the purpose of discouraging employees from organizing or joining a labor union. It is considered a union-busting tactic. Critics allege that captive audience meetings are used to intimidate workers and spread misinformation; employees can be fired for failing to participate in the meeting or for asking questions. In the United States, the National Labor Relations Act of 1935 (NLRA) broadly permits captive audience meetings but does not allow them to be held in the final 24 hours prior to a union election. Employers defend the practice as protected free speech; critics view the practice as an infringement on workers' rights not to listen.

References

  1. ↑ Jon Shelton, “Compulsory Unionism” and Its Critics: The National Right to Work Committee, Teacher Unions, and the Defeat of Labor Law Reform in 1978, 29 J. of Pub. Hist. 378, 380-81 (2017).
  2. 1 2 3 Dennis R. Nolan & Richard I. Lehr, Improving NLRB Unfair Labor Practice Procedures, 57 Tex. L. Rev. 47, 52 (1978).
  3. 1 2 Jeffrey H. Burton, Proposals to Amend the National Labor Relations Act: Background, Pro-Con Analysis and Congressional Action, 60 (1979), Cong. Res. Serv. 79-65E.
  4. 1 2 3 Labor Law Reform Message from Jimmy Carter, President of the United States, to the U.S. Congress (July 18, 1977) (on file at The American Presidency Project).
  5. ↑ Labor Reform Act of 1977, H.R. 8410, 95th Cong. (1978).
  6. ↑ Dennis R. Nolan & Richard I. Lehr, Improving NLRB Unfair Labor Practice Procedures, 57 Tex. L. Rev. 47, 56 (1978).
  7. ↑ Dennis R. Nolan & Richard I. Lehr, Improving NLRB Unfair Labor Practice Procedures, 57 Tex. L. Rev. 47, 59 (1978).
  8. ↑ Dennis R. Nolan & Richard I. Lehr, Improving NLRB Unfair Labor Practice Procedures, 57 Tex. L. Rev. 47, 60 (1978).
  9. 1 2 Jeffrey H. Burton, Proposals to Amend the National Labor Relations Act: Background, Pro-Con Analysis and Congressional Action, 43 (1979), Cong. Res. Serv. 79-65E.
  10. ↑ Jeffrey H. Burton, Proposals to Amend the National Labor Relations Act: Background, Pro-Con Analysis and Congressional Action, 43-44 (1979), Cong. Res. Serv. 79-65E.
  11. ↑ Jeffrey H. Burton, Proposals to Amend the National Labor Relations Act: Background, Pro-Con Analysis and Congressional Action, 61 (1979), Cong. Res. Serv. 79-65E.
  12. ↑ Jeffrey H. Burton, Proposals to Amend the National Labor Relations Act: Background, Pro-Con Analysis and Congressional Action, 61-62 (1979), Cong. Res. Serv. 79-65E.
  13. 1 2 Jeffrey H. Burton, Proposals to Amend the National Labor Relations Act: Background, Pro-Con Analysis and Congressional Action, 63 (1979), Cong. Res. Serv. 79-65E.


This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.