Historical Background of Contemporary Labor Law Individual Assignment - Research Paper Example

The board’s decision to punish the employer under section 8(a) (1) was not approved by the court of appeal when the employer did appeal. This decision was taken to the Supreme Court, which granted certiorari and set a stage for oral argument together with Garment Workers v. Quality Mfg. Co., 420 U. S. 276. The case was ruled in favor of the board in 1975 the judge based his ruling on the fact that section 7 has a provision for statutory right of any employee to reject submitting to his or her employer in the absence of representation from the union if he reasonably has fears that this interview will lead to him or her being punished.

This case was held in essence of there being a permissible construction of some form of concerted activities, which needed mutual protection that the employee was denied. An employee pursuing representation from the union has the responsibility of representing the entire labor union. The Supreme Court believed some of the cases ruled in the past had flaws when compared to cases arising in the current context. The Weingarten right has been extended to those employees without labor union considering that there is need to be represented by a third party who has no stake in the issue at hand for both parties as seen in Epilepsy Foundation of Northeast Ohio, 331 NLRB No.

92, 676 (2000). One of the most serious issues that the labor law seeks to guard against is the employment of minors within any form of work structure. Use of child labor in production of goods was prohibited to such an extent that even transportation and sale of such goods was to be made illegal. This was expressed under the Act of September 1, 1916, c. 432, 39 Stat. 675. This Act was however seen as being unconstitutional since it was deemed to overshadow the commerce power that Congress enjoys and interfering with such powers that is a reserve for the state.

This could be well illustrated in Hammer v. Dagenhart, 247 U.S. 251 (1918) case. A certain bill had been filed by a father on his behalf and also as a representative of his two sons who were minors who were employee at the Cotton Mill at Charlotte in North Carolina in view of enjoining the use of Act of Congress with the intention of averting the interstate exchange of goods from child labor. It was held by the district court that the Act was quite unconstitutional and thus entered a decree that enjoined the enforcement.

This ruling was based on the fact that this was not in any way meant to regulate the foreign commerce and interstate business practices; that this Act contravened the constitution through the Tenth Amendment; and that it actually does conflict with the Fifth Amendment (Justia). As seen in the case of Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 1, the judge ruled on the issue of commerce powers as opposed to prohibition. The powers of commerce were limited to prescribing the rule to govern commerce but not forbidding commerce from interstate transportation of commodities.

This was however contrary to adjudged cases in the same court which had held that the regulation powers which were given to Congress did include prohibition authority when it comes to movement of such goods. The interstate transportation was only necessary in meeting harmful results which could only be achieved through forbidding use of those facilities which were used in production of such products considered as harmful. The