The Law Of The United States

The statements made by the employer appear to coincide with an unlawful promise of benefits, and therefore, are unacceptable in relation to the act. The concept of “positive coercion” is addressed in the case study, and these actions directly influence the manner

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.

Members of management of a company whose employees are attempting to organize cannot, by law, join a union. Once preliminary organizing begins and during the election campaign, employers have certain rights and responsibilities, as mandated by the NLRB. The employer may lawfully limit campaign activities that occur on company property, if it has a legitimate reason to do so. Employers may also limit places where solicitation may occur, limit time during which solicitation may take place, and limit access to the workplace by any outsider. Employers may limit distribution of union

However, the ruling in this case and others like it prove that employers can, in fact, be bound by articles written in an employee handbook when disciplining or discharging an employee. An abysmally written handbook can greatly jeopardize an employer’s right to terminate at will. Trends show that courts are increasingly acknowledging enforceable promises in the past employment practices of firms, in employer handbooks and in oral commitments. In addition to including an at-will disclaimer in employee handbooks, employers should also require employees to sign an acknowledgment confirming that they understand and agree to employment-at-will and that at-will employment can at any time be modified by a written agreement. Personnel manuals should explicitly state that the employer reserves the right to terminate employment at will. All written policies should also be free of any language that could be considered as a guarantee of job security. To be sure that these common pitfalls are avoided employers must retain the service of a labor attorney to draft and air-tight employee manual and acknowledgment

29 U.S.C. §§ 151-169 (2015). The NLRA enables workers to engage in concerted action free from employer coercion, retaliation, and to bargain collectively with their employer. Id. See also Richard B. Freeman, What Can We Learn from the NLRA to Create Labor Law for the Twenty-First Century? 26 ABA J. LAB. & EMP. L. 327, 327 (2010). Freeman notes that “[t]he NLRA intended to replace the costly organizational fights that historically marred U.S. labor relations with a ‘laboratory conditions’ electoral process . . . .” Id. It also was meant to bolster the economy, facilitate labor peace, and create more jobs. Id.

Of the many laws and regulations that affect labor relations in the United States, few have had a greater impact than the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). This law, passed in 1935, was designed to protect the rights of both employers and employees, while also discouraging certain workplace practices. But what did this law actually do, and how does it affect your company today? Our workforce specialists at Industrial Relations Consultants have your answers.

Facts: In Davis Supermarkets, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board 2 F.3d 1162 (DC. Cir. 1993), the Court was asked to decide a dispute between an employer (Davis) and the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). The NLRB had found that Davis committed unfair labor practices, which Davis disputed. A union (Local 23) was attempting to organize a local at Davis. Several employees signed authorization cards for the union. Six of those employees were terminated in a mass layoff that impacted eight employees. Davis then fired or constructively fired three more employees who had filed authorization cards. Davis's chairman of the board then informed employees that he wanted them to sign authorizations with the Steelworkers, a competing union. However, Davis maintained that the employees were terminated for cause, not because they signed authorization cards for Local 23.

NLRA was considered to be the law that affected the relationship among the federal government and private enterprise; this measure considerably increased the government’s powers to arbitrate in labor relations. Prior to this law, employers had the emancipation to chastise, spy on, question for no reason and fire union members. Work stoppages commenced in the mid 1930’s (Gould, 1986), which included striking by factory and industrial occupational workers. By the time the strikes came to a halt, America had a more conservative Congress. This Congress led to balance the power between employers and unions. While the Wagner Act addressed only unfair labor practices by employers, it was added to the enactment of

3. If you were a member of the NLRB, how would you rule in this case and why?

Next, it is important to understand what the NLRB does and does not have jurisdiction over. The NLRB does not have jurisdiction over 6 types of labors: (1) governmental employees, (2) persons covered by the Railway Act, (3) independent contractors, (4) agricultural laborers, (5) household/domestic workers, and (6) employees who work for their spouse or parents (Reed, 631). Technically the NLRB has jurisdiction over everything else; however, the NLRB has a limited budget as well as time constraints and so must limit

At the turn of the twentieth century, a bourgeoisie fixation on capitalistic structures and mass consumerism often juxtaposed the call for meritocracy, thus placing some individuals at an advantage over others. Tension was soon evident between the beneficiaries and the exploited of the gilded economy. This push and pull relationship can best be observed in the 1908 Supreme Court case, Muller v. Oregon, in which the owner of a Portland Laundromat violated state legislation that disallowed women from working more than ten hours a day. Siding with the needs of the laborer, the Supreme Court overruled Muller’s claim for freedom of contract and right to property (Gagnon Lecture, 01/26/15). While many argue that this decision devalues the relationship between employee and employer as well as undermines an individual’s inalienable rights to life, liberty and property at the hands of another, there is an underlying, and perhaps even larger issue at hand. The ruling of the case indicates that judiciary actions taken only reinforce gender formations- once again attacking the plea for equal opportunity. Because of this alarming backlash in societal equity, the Supreme Court’s decision should be deemed unjust. Although the case recognizes the significance of employee rights in the workforce, the decision is restricted to the sole protection of female workers and only

Tennessee Code Annotated §50-1-201 et seq. states that it is unlawful for any employer or organization of any kind and an organization or employer of any kind violating any of the provisions of this part commits a Class A misdemeanor. To deny or attempt to deny employment to any person by reason of the person’s membership in, affiliation with, resignation from or refusal to join or affiliate with any labor union or employee organization of any kind. To enter into any contract, combination or agreement, written or oral, providing for exclusion from employment of any person because of membership in, affiliation with, resignation from or refusal to join or affiliate with any labor union or employee organization of any kind. To exclude from employment an person by reason of the person’s payment of or failure to pay dues, fees, assessments or other charges to any labor union or employee organization of any kind. Operating in this state to execute an agreement with a union or employee organization of any kind that includes a maintenance of membership clause prohibiting employees for withdrawing from a labor union or employee organization prior to the agreement’ s expiration. This section shall not apply to a city, town, municipality or county including a county having a metropolitan form of

I came across the CNN Money article “What right-to-work laws really mean,” while browsing the Internet for a topic for this research paper. After reading that article it became apparent to me that Indiana’s decision to embrace a right-to-work law was a significant push in the area of worker’s rights in labor unions. I continued looking into the topic and found an article from the Mackinac Center for Public Policy that outlined the pros and cons of the state of

As a result of these law many companies utilize outsourcing (page 342) by contracting labor related services to other counties due to lower costs. A main reason for the significant lower cost is because of extremely low wages and poor working conditions of the working the workers, in many sweatshops (page337). There are many resistant strategies (page 329) that are used by workers to express their displeasure with conditions and attempt to gain some degree of control of the conditions of their labor. Here in the United States a common effective approach is to form a union (page 333) in which workers can bargain for improvement of wages and conditions as a collective unit of

When comparing the granted rights of employees versus employers, it does not truly seem that either party has the advantage. These factors can often vary depending on state laws and regulations, and it appears when consulting these laws, that there are many loopholes due to the gray areas that accompany behavioral legal situations. There are many occurrences of foul play, stereotyping and opinionated biases that seem to have caused and shaped these existing laws. Very much like the medical field now, it seems that many employers have taken tedious extra precautions in order to avoid legislation with what may be disgruntled past employees.