Norris-La Guardia Case Study

In 1947 it was revised to help better protect employees as well as employers. The revision stated that employees and managers must bargain “in good faith” with each other, and illegalized wild cat strikes, (refusing to work under a valid contract). These rights help employees as well as employers to be treated fairly. Forcing employees and employers to work together as a team can increase their understanding of where each side is coming from, as well as making it easier to compromise. The act also prevented businesses from becoming “closed shops,” (places where only union members were hired.) and prevented members from forcing others to join a union. Employees were also given the option to hold elections to certify and decertify unions. Employers were given the freedom to voice any concerns they had over unions so long as they did not interfere with the organization of unions. The revised act also gives the president the power to call off strikes in the event that it becomes a national emergency. A board may be hired to examine the situation of the strike so that the president may better understand why the situation has not been resolved. The president can then put an injunction on the strike; if a decision is not reached, the injunction can be extended.

This law is also known as the Wagner Act, named for Senator Robert F. Wagner, the man who championed it. In a nutshell this law protects employees’ rights to form and participate in labor unions. The book, Labor Relations: Striking a Balance identifies the central provisions of the Act. These provisions include the establishment of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) which answers representation questions and settles unfair labor practice claims. The act gives workers the right to form unions and bargain collectively. It identifies five unfair labor practices and “establishes exclusive representation for unions that have majority support and grants them rights of collective bargaining over wages, hours of employment and other conditions of employment” (Budd, 2010, pp. 119-121). The law also made it illegal for companies to fire employees for forming or joining unions and prohibited company managed unions.

All organizations are in business to make money, but there are rules that the employer and the employee must follow as well. Any influence that management and labor have over the organization should be equal. The “Landrum-Griffin Act also knows as the Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act.” Was passed in 1959 through U.S. Congress. This is the result of certain improper activities that was going on between labors, management, employers and certain union officials. Many of the officials in higher positions misused numerous labor funds as well as being involve in violent activities. This act regulated union affairs internally and also controlled the use of union funds.

The laws that were related was Wagner Act. It made the federal government the arbiter of employer-employee relations through the creation of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). This allowed rights for workers to organize and bargain collectively with their employees for the first time in history. This act would overturn the court decide that asserted the union labor violated an employee's. This was passed after the New Deal and had a major impact on the employee's

7 The right of employees to strike in support of their bargaining demands is protected by

The Taft-Hartley Act, which can also be referred to as the labor management relations act was implemented in 1947 (Legal Dictionary, 2015). The purpose of this act was to resolve unfair labor practices that were being exercised in unions. This act served to act as an amendment to previous laws, which were established under the Wagner act of 1935. The changes that were included focused on prohibiting secondary boycotts, required equal treatment between independent and affiliated unions, and altered the conditions on collective bargaining which

The Civil Rights Act, Pure Food and Drug Act, Federal Reserve Act of 1913, and The Social Security Act all helped to establish a precedent going forward in regards to their respective objective in the United States of America. The Wagner Act of 1935 did just that for unions, and established the principles under which unions are governed to this very day. As with most laws that are foundational to the fabric of United States’ governance, the Wagner Act was neither established nor continuing to function today without controversy. So why despite this controversy was this act passed, been able to stand the test of time, and can it principles continue to weather the incessant backlash it has received?

When speaking of unfair labor practices, it is imperative to note that, according to the provisions of the National Labor Relations Act, they include any attempts of an employer to prevent employees from organizing or creating their unions, restrain or interfere with their rights to support the existing union, affect their intentions and perceptions of union activities, threatening an employee with firing them or taking away their benefits predetermined by their competence if they choose to support the union (Legal Information Institute, n.d.; Noe et al.,

It brought about "yellow dog" contracts, in which employee agrees not to join a union. And it also guaranteed trials for strikers held for contempt of court.

Right, to-Work Laws initially showed up in a few states after Congress established the 1935 National Labor Relations Act, otherwise called the Wagner Act, and most are still active today in about twenty-two states today. The rights associated with these laws displayed the differences of the ideology amongst business and representative. They ensure the individual laborer 's opportunity to decline to join or to help bolster a union, including one picked by the employee to represent as their bartering agent. Consequently, from the point of view invigorating the Wagner Act, they were meant to create frictions leading to the disruption of any labor agreements. More particularly, ideal right-to-work laws are pointed against union security

The Taft-Hartley Act was created to level the field that formerly tilted in favor of labor unions. After great numbers of large-scale strikes had nearly disabled the automobile, steel, and packing industries, the government needed to amend the gaps left by the Wagner act and by the National Labor Relations Act of 1953. Sponsored by Senator Robert A. Taft, and Representative Fred A. Hartley, Jr. (New Jersey), it helped to “patch” issues that were left in The Wagner Act of 1935. The Act was vetoed by President Harry Truman, but was superseded by congress. Another opponent of the act was John L. Lewis. A powerful labor leader who helped to raise living standards for millions of workers and families in the 1930s, he was regarded as a hero by the mining union, and many workers. Lewis hated the Act, calling it “the first ugly savage thrust of Fascism in America” As the Taft-Hartley Act was essentially designed to limit the power of unions greatly, it was a major obstacle for him.

The Taft-Hartley Act was passed in 1947 to protect the employee’s rights from the union and their unfair practices ("1947 Taft-Hartley Substantive Provisions | NLRB," n.d). The ACT changed the language of the Wagner ACT, to protect the employees who did not want to participate in union activities but they were required to become a member as one of the conditions when they were hired ("1947 Taft-Hartley Substantive Provisions | NLRB," n.d.). Another change made to protect the employees was stopping the union from overcharging the dues and fees. The amendment also noted that unions had an obligation to all members to bargain in good faith ("1947 Taft-Hartley Substantive Provisions | NLRB," n.d.).

The Court held an employer could not be compelled by the Act to do so if other channels of communication are available that allows the union to reach the employees, provided that the employer does not discriminate against the union by allowing other distributions. The Supreme Court stated that so long as the circumstances of the employment do not "place the employees beyond the reach of reasonable union efforts to communicate with them," respect for the employer 's property rights allow it to prohibit nonemployee access to its property. In doing so, the Court specifically differentiated the access rights of employees from those of nonemployees. The distinction [between employees and nonemployees] is one of substance. No restriction may be placed on the employees ' right to discuss self-organization among themselves unless the employer can demonstrate that a restriction is necessary to maintain production or discipline. Republic Aviation Corp. v. Labor Board, 324 U.S. 793, 803. But no such obligation is owed nonemployee organizers.” Ted Scott and Sara B. Kalis, Littler Mendelson, P.C.1.

The National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) started in July 1935 to protect the rights of employees, rather, they be union or nor-union employees (Pozgar, 2012). The employees are protected under the Act or may employ in bubble-like, rigorous goings-on in situations other than the customary union organizations and cooperative bargaining. The National Labor Relations Board regulates the employers from interfering with the rights of the employees to implement or organize and join with a groups that offers assists with collective bargaining purposes like organization union or joining one (Pozgar, 2012). The employer may not restrain, coerce or stop employees

The National Labor Relations Act was enacted by congress in 1935 in order to define and defend the rights of the employment relationship. The act allows employees of a company the right to form a union and have the union organization represent them through collective bargaining. Collective bargaining is the process of negotiation between both parties; Union representatives and a corporation, with the purpose of reaching an agreement for the best interests of employees and the corporation. In the negotiation process the attempt is to establish primary factors of importance which are advantages the union fights for and ultimately provide for its stakeholders that would otherwise not have