The National Labor Relations Act and the Protection against Unfair Labor Practices - Research Paper Example

The National Labor Relations Act and the Protection against Unfair Labor Practices Introduction The National Labor Relations Act or otherwise known as the Wagner Act, named after the author Robert F. Wagner, was formulated and enforced in 19351. This act aims to end the continuous malpractices of some American established companies that prevent employees to bargain and ask for a better compensation through union formation2. Eventually, this has been the founding ground work for the protection against unfair labor practices. In the early years prior to the submission of this congressional law, private companies and industries abuse the labor practices and rights of individuals. Inhumane wage amounts, less established and changing work schedule ruled over the labor field and industry which has caught the concerns of individual employee that was shared and made into common grief3. In addition to that, discrimination and retaliation of the union members are common among the said companies. The same companies and industries also interfere with the employees’ plans to end the continuous strife being promulgated by the heads in the fear of responding to their cry of preserving labor rights. To end these abuses, the submission, approval and enactment of the Wagner Act halted the problems faced by employees. Summary of the Early Acts The National Labor Relations Act of 1935 has been formulated after 4 different governing acts but with similar aims in regards to employee protection in it. These are the Clayton Act, the Railway Labor Act, the Davis-Bacon Act and the Norris-Laguardia Act. The Clayton Act is one of the Anti-trust Laws formulated in 1914. This act deals primarily with various types of halting policies or restraints with regards to employer-employee relationships. It includes exclusive arrangements in dealings, tie-in sales, discrimination of price, acquisitions and mergers, and directories that are interlocking in nature1. These identified restraints carries but are not limited to civil penalties considering the various statutory violations committed by the concerned party. This is jointly enforced by the Federal Trade Commission and the Antitrust Division. On the other hand, the Railway Labor Act focuses and handles with the employees in the field of land and air transportation. It is one of the Federal Laws that embodies and looks into the various challenges and grievances brought out by the concerned employees in the identified field. This particular act tries to evaluate other means of airing concerns aside from strike. As proposed and legalized, bargaining, mediation and arbitration are three lawful ways to present amendments in the employer-employee relationship2. The Davis-Bacon Act of 1931 handles employee’s wage concern in a different field. This act established the mandatory payment of compensation for public works projects. Furthermore, this act states that for all government and federal assisted project contracts more than $2,000, a mandatory provision of payment for workers on the site of construction should not be less than the existing compensation and benefits being given on similar construction projects3. The Norris-Laguardia Act or the Anti-Injuction Act of 1932 acted in response to what people’s view as the court’s abuse in labor injunction disputes4. Injunction is the court’s ability to mandate or hinder an employee’s performance in response to the request handed by the companies or industries. This has been abused by the latter due to their aim of preventing occasional assemblies of workers in their response to conduct strike or even to create labor union. This act ensures procedural safeguards and barriers that narrow the usage of injunctions. It treats unions as entities that possess rights and freedom without an employer’s coercion. Enforcement The creation of National Labor Relations Act has paved way in the establishment of National Labor Relations Board who sees and maintains the enforcement of the law. They ensure that all companies and industries are not violating the said law. Basically, the NLRB has two functions: 1. monitoring the process made by employees in deciding whether to embrace a chosen labor organization; and 2. prosecuting and penalizing violations1. To specifically implement the said duties, regional offices were created which will handle various complaints when necessary. Furthermore, the board has given the right to define and establish a manual of practice or action that will be used by the companies parallel to their own laws and regulations. Violations of such will be dealt with accordingly by the National Labor Relations Board. The National Labor Relations Act The National Labor Relations Act of 1935 is the bylaws that govern the creation and right preservation of labor unions in the United States of America2. It provides sections that define the rules and regulations governing the Company as an employer, the employees, the union and the formulation and regulation of the various labor unions as to what are their scope and limitations in enacting the law. Furthermore, the act also clarifies the various speculations that concern the employees in the creation of their own board. The act also promulgates a number of powers, especially in mediating with the conflict brought about with in the context of their rights and powers and the performance of an independent inquiry concerning the filed complaint. A brilliant case in good point, the Act provides the qualification on who will seat on the office of the board and be responsible for the decisions in terms of challenges inside scope of office and the law1. Furthermore, it provides a series of exemptions on the previously passed laws, specifically in the railway law. It also provides the criteria on when will the rights be considered and when will it be abused. Likewise, the definition of who are responsible for the offenses and the different penalties for the said matter are incorporated and clearly discussed in a specific section. Reactions to the Act Upon the formulation and enactment of the National Labor Relations Act in 1935, there are two opposing parties that deliberately voiced out their stand with regards to the new law provided. One concurred to the aims and regulations proposed by the law while the other opposed and obtained a number of flaws against it. The American Liberty League, in particular, agreed with the conditions and the rules provided by this act2. This is due to their aims and goals perpendicular to the aims and goals of NLRA. They value the importance of the employees and the unions as part of the rightful individuals that should be respected by the companies involved. On the other hand, a strong opposition of the said act was aired out by the American Federation of Labor. This is due to their strong alliance with the companies and manufacturing industries in the late 19th century and the early 20th century. They somehow value more the intentions and the interests of the industrial manufacturers than those of the employees and workers3. They are even against, in one way or the other, about the formulation and the regulation of labor unions and the like. Violations Together with the approval of the act by the Congress as a law, the various criteria that indicate violation were also included. These criteria posses the different possible violations that might be committed by the employer and the labor organization which, will then be bases for investigation and further studies to be conducted. For the employer, one should not interfere, restrain or even coerce with employees in performing their rights. One should not also interfere or dominate with the creation of labor organization administration. They are also not allowed to encourage or discourage an employee to join or quit membership in a labor union in exchange of employment. Discrimination and discharge against an employee due to a filed charge against this act is lawfully unacceptable. It is not also allowed to refuse collective bargaining with the representatives of the workers. On the other hand, for the labor organization to: 1. restrain employees in their rights exercises; 2. cause or try an employer to go against an employee whose membership to the said organization has been denied; 3. refuse to bargain collectively with an employer; 4. to engage in strikes through not performing their work in the field of commerce; 5. to require a membership fee in becoming part of the organization; 6. to force an employer to pay an undone job; and 7. to picket an employer. These are the things that encompass the protection against unfair labor. Without these promulgated criteria, labor abuses will still commence not only through the performance of the employer but also with the different organizations who try to manipulate the laws in reaching their favor. In addition to that, there will be no guiding rules that will be followed by the companies in their continuous observance and value of the existing employer-employee relationship. Application of the Unfair Labor Law in Different Cities In line with the National Labor Relations Act, the promulgation and continuous observance of Unfair Labor Law exists almost inevitably. Every city in the country has its own way of enacting and enforcing the law. Although the regions are varied and companies differ from one are to the other, the same interpretation all around the concerned areas. The application of the act encompasses all labor unions and companies in every area, either privately owned or government funded. Each region has their own office of the National Labor Relations Board that will oversee and handle various cases in violation to the established law. Unions Unionization is the act of conniving or joining and creating a union. Theories have showed that unionization happens when the employees felt underpaid, unsafe, disrespected and unappreciated by the employers despite their efforts in performing their job at their best1. The union becomes the collective bargaining representative to air out the various concerns and problems felt and perceived by the members or by the workers composing. This is however naturally opposed by the employers due to the constraints that will be created with what managers are able to and not able to do. Unions and labor relations are typically strong depending on the participation of the members. When the collective number of workers does have strong bonds between each other in consideration to their aims and concerns, then the ties will become as concrete as they will try to bargain with the employers of the company. Unfair Labor Cases One of the companies that had faced unfair labor cases in the past is Nike2. It is a shoe company that operates a number of manufacturing companies around the world. To specifically evaluate the case, their Vietnam manufacturing factory comprises only a small number of supervisors that will oversee the workers as they perform their work. In addition to that, the company also provides a small amount of compensation which is unequal to the number of working hours and the nature of the work. Upon analyzing the given factors presented in the case of Nike, although the affected factory is in Vietnam, the main office and the main operating center is in the United States of America. Thus, the American company faces the same charges that are in violation to the National Labor Relations Act. Furthermore, the act provides a criterion that identifies underpayment as one of the violations of the act, which had been investigated by the NLRB and was responded by the company. As part of their response, the company reviewed their wage status for the workers and provided additional number of supervisors and workers to equally delegate responsibilities according to the standard set by the law. Another unfair labor case that has been found popular in the early 21st century comes with the Wal-mart Company1. Wal-mart is a chain of huge stores sprouting evidently in strategic places all over America2. In the first few years of their uprising, Wal-Mart has produced thousands of job opportunities for the whole Americans and the other races. Their promises regarding competent salary compensation, a good health care support system and other benefits have been the enticing factors for the human workforce. Their popularity grew higher and bigger as they publish their annual net income and earnings. Press conferences every now and then even made Wal-Mart popular as they wished they could be3. However, in the later part of their continuous operation, problems grew regarding human labor and unfair labor practices. Workers suddenly experienced a decrease in the support system promised by the company prior to their operation. A proof to this is Wal-Mart’s decision to let the government shoulder health care benefits for the workers, which is evidently disrespecting their word prior to hiring their employees. The number of working hours has been lengthening without a corresponding increase in their compensation. This act has been later explained by the company as part of the operation’s compensatory actions in response to the downsizing of human labor. Other reports also showed that racial discrimination dominated in the workplace which has offended a portion of the total working committee. Furthermore, the issue between the company’s denials about the employees’ request for bargaining to solve the overlapping problems in the labor section provided a great impact to the society. Although the company did not directly disregard the presence of the employees’ representative for collective bargaining, coercive actions were presented in the National Labor Relations Board to be reviewed and to be dealt with1. Upon analyzing the presented case, a clear violation on the criteria and manual corresponding to the National Labor Relations Act can be identified. The law values the rights of the employees to have a representative for collective bargaining in airing out the concerns felt by the employees2. However, as seen in the situation presented by the employees, Wal-Mart, although did not directly abandon the chance of the representative to hear out their concern, they failed to accommodate the representatives and instead, suggested to hand in a letter containing their grievances. To add more, the disproportion between the number of working hours and the proposed compensation given by the company adds up to the number of violations committed by Wal-Mart. Racial discrimination is also a serious violation to the enacted National Labor Relations Act. It is but a fundamental right of each citizen to uphold their own race as they continue to work in the boundaries of the company. As strongly indicated in the law, no company should tolerate racial discrimination cases, especially when they are committed by people in the higher position. Failure to provide a chance to increase the compensation and a thorough review on the qualifications for promotion on each probable employee is also a problem1. The act further indicates that a company should always be objective in granting promotions to each worker regardless the race and the nationality of the employee. These are the things that have been noted with regards to the unfair labor case committed by the Wal-Mart. These are not the only cases of unfair labor practice in the Unite States of America. Another case that we can look into is the unfair labor practice case filed by SEIU Local 715 against two health care institutions namely, Stanford Hospital and Clinics and Lucile Packard’s Children Hospital2. The case happened after the two hospitals failed to recognize the existence of SEIU Local 715 as the representative of their employees. This is a clear violation of the law; however, a strong case may be won by the two hospitals. Prior to the hospital’s failure to recognize the union, they have sent out a communication letter to the SEIU Local 715 in order to ask for their confirmation about their existence and participation with the hospital’s employees. This has been used by the hospitals to counter the case filed by the union. Upon analyzing the presented problem, it can be noticed that the problem really is with the union. A communication letter is but important for the hospital for confirmatory purposes. As the union failed to respond correctly with the hospital, it is the prerogative of the health care institution to consider the union as non-existing due to their lack of response to the letter. This is a strong case against the hospital but might be over ruled due to the clear absence of communication in the part of the union. There are still other cases of unfair labor practices all over America. However, these cases are seriously being investigated by the National Labor Relations Board prior to implementing the steps necessary to end the conflict3. The agency ensures that a fair and concrete investigation will be performed to give justice to both concerned parties. They are representing not just for the employees but also for the correct enactment of the law as mandated by the National Labor Relations Act. Conclusion Viewing at the context cited regarding the Wagner Act or the National Labor Relations Act established in 1935, it is but conclusive that the aforementioned law provides an integral part in maintaining equilibrium between an employer through a company or industry and the employees through an organization. Furthermore, the criteria set by the said bylaw protect and provides security to both parties involved in commerce or other industry. Hence, regulations and abuses are continuously overseen by the National Labor Relations Board to prevent the unprecedented unfair labor and mishandlings of workers. Likewise, it also manifests its power in preventing abuses in the part of labor groups in coercing or demanding unfair requests to the company. These have been the good foundation for a good employer-employee relationship. The bottom line is, the NLRA was created to maintain and further freedom of employees not only in their individual rights but also the rights in collectively bargaining concerns through groups or labor unions. Read More