tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1953627829747933572024-02-20T01:56:30.107-08:00Charles J. Morris on Labor RelationsCharles J. Morris,http://www.blogger.com/profile/01893087451435558969noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-195362782974793357.post-18376802685327599272014-05-01T11:10:00.001-07:002014-05-01T11:10:52.331-07:00
<br />
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: center;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="text-transform: uppercase;"><span style="font-family: Arial;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>U.S. Chamber of commerce predicts<br />
<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Members-Only collective bargaining <br />
</span></span></b><span style="font-family: Arial;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">by<br />
Charles J. Morris (</span><span style="font-size: 8pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial;">©</span><span style="font-size: 8pt;"> 2014)</span><span style="font-size: 10pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<br />
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: 8pt;"><o:p><span style="font-family: Arial;"></span></o:p></span><br /></div>
<span style="mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="font-family: Arial;">The U.S. Chamber of Commerce announces in
the title to its recent report on union representation that “<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">The Blue Eagle Has Landed</i>”</span><a href="file:///C:/Users/Morris/Documents/Blue%20Eagle%20Rule%202d/Blog%20US%20Chamber%20Blue%20Eagle.docx" name="_ftnref1" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn1;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;">[1]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a></span><span style="font-family: Arial;"><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;">—</span><span style="mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;">referring to the “<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Blue Eagle At Work</i>”<a href="file:///C:/Users/Morris/Documents/Blue%20Eagle%20Rule%202d/Blog%20US%20Chamber%20Blue%20Eagle.docx" name="_ftnref2" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn2;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;">[2]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a> (my book
on members-only collective bargaining)</span><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;">—</span><span style="mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;">and it
concludes that the present system of majority-union representation and collective
bargaining is “giving way to a...system that allows for members-only
representation.”<a href="file:///C:/Users/Morris/Documents/Blue%20Eagle%20Rule%202d/Blog%20US%20Chamber%20Blue%20Eagle.docx" name="_ftnref3" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn3;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;">[3]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I appreciate such prescience in the report’s title
and ill-gotten conclusion, for although the <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Blue
Eagle</i> has not yet landed, it is expected to land in the near future, after
which American labor relations should vastly improve.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>When that occurs, the original and existing purpose
of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA or Act) will certainly be more
accurately realized than it has been in recent years, and this will significantly
help in the rebuilding of America’s diminishing middle class.<o:p></o:p></span></span><br />
<br />
<div class="articleparagraph" style="margin: 6pt 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Arial;"><span style="mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;">What I don’t appreciate, however, is that
in this unsigned report the Chamber disparages and inaccurately describes the
process of members-only representation and bargaining and grossly misrepresents
and distorts the plain language and law of the NLRA and its legislative history,
which are the subjects of this blog.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I invite
any Chamber attorney or attorneys with name identification to counter with documented
references to specific statutory text, legislative history, and applicable
cases</span><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;">—</span><span style="mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;">which will be difficult if not
impossible in view of what that text, history, and those cases clearly say.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I shall indeed welcome a response.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<br />
<div class="articleparagraph" style="margin: 6pt 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Arial;"><span style="mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;">Although the title and central focus of the
Chamber’s report concern members-only minority-union collective bargaining, its
featured complaint concerns the establishment and role of <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">worker centers,</i> which it views as forerunners of minority
bargaining</span><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;">—</span><span style="mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;"> notwithstanding the absence of any
evidence tying those two concepts together.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>My concern here, however, is not with what it asserts about worker
centers and their effect, but with the major falsehoods that it asserts about
members-only bargaining, of which it disapproves. </span><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span><span style="mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;">I
leave to others the task of correcting misconceptions about worker centers. <o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<br />
<div class="articleparagraph" style="margin: 6pt 0in;">
<span style="mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="font-family: Arial;">I begin this consideration with a glimpse
at relevant history.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Members-only collective
bargaining was commonly practiced during the first decade following passage of
the NL<span style="text-transform: uppercase;">R</span>A.</span><a href="file:///C:/Users/Morris/Documents/Blue%20Eagle%20Rule%202d/Blog%20US%20Chamber%20Blue%20Eagle.docx" name="_ftnref4" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn4;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;">[4]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a><span style="font-family: Arial;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In fact, it was pursuant to a members-only
recognition and bargaining procedure advocated by Myron Taylor, the head of
U.S. Steel,</span><a href="file:///C:/Users/Morris/Documents/Blue%20Eagle%20Rule%202d/Blog%20US%20Chamber%20Blue%20Eagle.docx" name="_ftnref5" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn5;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;">[5]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a><span style="font-family: Arial;">
that this practice became the basis for the first collective bargaining
contracts in both the steel and automobile industries.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>However, notwithstanding its early success, the
practice was eventually abandoned because in those years unions recognized that
National Labor Relations Board (NLRB or Board) representation procedures,
including elections, yielded a faster access to majority/exclusive
representation.</span><a href="file:///C:/Users/Morris/Documents/Blue%20Eagle%20Rule%202d/Blog%20US%20Chamber%20Blue%20Eagle.docx" name="_ftnref6" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn6;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;">[6]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a><span style="font-family: Arial;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But with NLRB elections having now evolved
into unfair employer-controlled battlegrounds that tend to discourage or prevent
most employees who desire union representation and collective bargaining from
ever achieving that objective, the time has come to re-start the members-only bargaining
practice. <o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<br />
<div class="articleparagraph" style="margin: 6pt 0in;">
<span style="mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="font-family: Arial;">I shall charitably attribute the Chamber’s blatant
misstatements about members-only bargaining primarily to a lack of independent legal
analysis rather than to intentional dishonesty, for all of its legal
conclusions repeat errors already contained in the Advice Memorandum that former
NLRB General Counsel Ron Meisburg issued in 2006 when he refused to issue a
complaint in the <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Dick’s Sporting Goods</i>
case</span><a href="file:///C:/Users/Morris/Documents/Blue%20Eagle%20Rule%202d/Blog%20US%20Chamber%20Blue%20Eagle.docx" name="_ftnref7" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn7;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;">[7]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a></span><span style="font-family: Arial;"><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;">—</span><span style="mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;">a refusal that denied and delayed the Board’s
exercising its proper role in interpreting the Act.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;">O</span><span style="mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;">ther
than its reading</span><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;">—</span><span style="mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;">and improperly reporting of</span><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;">—</span><span style="mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;">non-existent language in statutory text and
historical statements (which are noted below), the report does not contain a
single independent examination of statutory text or legislative history.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>That is understandable, however, for an
objective analysis would have yielded an affirmation that the so-called “Morris
thesis” is a correct statement of the law, not merely a “theory” as it is
repeatedly labeled in the report.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The validity
of this thesis was publically attested to in 2010 by forty-six labor law professors
from all over the country who signed and submitted to the Board an amici curiae
brief affirming the legal accuracy of that thesis.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<br />
<div class="articleparagraph" style="margin: 6pt 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Arial;"><span style="mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It is thus no surprise that the author, or
authors, of the report</span><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;">—</span><span style="mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;">like
those responsible for the <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Dick’s</i>
Advice Memorandum</span><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;">—chose not to attempt
to counter </span><span style="mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;">any of the Advice Memorandum’s list of deficiencies that the
involved unions cited, which the report nevertheless acknowledges and repeats<a href="file:///C:/Users/Morris/Documents/Blue%20Eagle%20Rule%202d/Blog%20US%20Chamber%20Blue%20Eagle.docx" name="_ftnref8" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn8;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;">[8]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a> that <o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<br />
<div class="quote1" style="margin: 0in 0.5in 1em;">
<span style="mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="font-family: Arial;">the General Counsel failed to identify any provision of the NLRA
that mandated that only majority unions have the right to collective bargaining;
did not properly read or analyze the plain language of Section 7 of the Act;
did not dispute that Section 9(a) was conditional; and “provided no textual or
history support for “his assertion that Section 8(a)(5) is premised on section 9(a).”<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<br />
<div class="articleparagraph" style="margin: 6pt 0in;">
<span style="mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="font-family: Arial;">In addition to its failure to identify
asserted statutory provisions, the report commits even baser un-lawyer-like actions.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It alters critical text.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The first of those alterations is its false description
of the <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">phrasing</i> of three basic labor statutes.
<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It states that <o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<br />
<div class="quote1" style="margin: 0in 0.5in 1em;">
<span style="mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="font-family: Arial;">The <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">majority</i> <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">representation</i> <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">phrasing</i> of Section 7 and 8(1) of the Wagner Act was carried over
almost verbatim from the Norris-LaGuardia Act via section 7(a) of the National
Industrial Recover Act, which had a developed case law under the (old) National
Labor Relations Board.</span><a href="file:///C:/Users/Morris/Documents/Blue%20Eagle%20Rule%202d/Blog%20US%20Chamber%20Blue%20Eagle.docx" name="_ftnref9" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn9;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;">[9]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a><span style="font-family: Arial;"> <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<br />
<div class="Style6" style="margin: 6pt 0in;">
<span style="mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="font-family: Arial;">Not one of those statutory provisions mentions or even implies “majority
representation.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The pertinent language
in all three provisions applies to “workers” or “employees” without reference
to majority status.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>By unambiguous text and
history they each promote collective bargaining and union organizing without
any reference to “majority’ representation.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<br />
<div class="articleparagraph" style="margin: 6pt 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Arial;"><span style="mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;">The report’s most basic textual error is
that it totally ignores the controlling plain language in Sections 7, </span>8(a)(1),
and 8(a)(5) of the Act, which contain the statutory text that “guarantee[s]” to
<span style="mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;">all
employees “</span>the<span style="mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;"> duty to bargain collectively” </span>without majority status being
mentioned or implied as a prerequisite.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The
report also ignores other textual evidence in the Act itself, Section 8(a)(3),
that proves Congress’s anticipation of minority-union bargaining, for that
clause expressly denies minority unions the right to enter into compulsory
union agreements, specifying that such agreements are permitted only “if such
labor organization is the representative of the employees <span style="mso-bidi-font-style: italic;">as provided in section 9(a), </span>thus acknowledging
the right of minority unions to bargain collectively concerning other subjects
of bargaining.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It is therefore beyond dispute
that <span style="mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;">Sections
7, </span>8(a)(1), and 8(a)(5), buttressed by the recognition language in
Section 8(a)(3) and the absence of contrary text anywhere in the Act<span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Arial;">—</span>including Section 9(a) noted below<span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Arial;">—</span>guarantee employees the right to
bargain collectively on a members-only basis through a union that represents
less than a majority of the employees in an appropriate bargaining unit.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>That is the law<span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Arial;">—n</span>otwithstanding the report’s wishful thinking to the contrary. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="articleparagraph" style="margin: 6pt 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">Another example of the report’s assertion of non-existent
statutory text is its reference</span><a href="file:///C:/Users/Morris/Documents/Blue%20Eagle%20Rule%202d/Blog%20US%20Chamber%20Blue%20Eagle.docx" name="_ftnref10" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn10;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;">[10]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a><span style="font-family: Arial;">
to the presence of “majority rule” in Section 8(a)(2), which prohibits company
unions, and in Section 8(b)(1)(A), which prohibits unions from restraining or
coercing employees in the exercise of their Section 7 rights.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This is pure fantasy; neither provision
relates to any special connection to “majority rule.” <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="articleparagraph" style="margin: 6pt 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">The report also erroneously affirms without
qualification,</span><a href="file:///C:/Users/Morris/Documents/Blue%20Eagle%20Rule%202d/Blog%20US%20Chamber%20Blue%20Eagle.docx" name="_ftnref11" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn11;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;">[11]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a><span style="font-family: Arial;">
the General Counsel’s assertion that “enacting Section 9(a) of the Act...sets
forth the majority rule,”<span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Arial;"> which as a
requirement for bargaining it does not.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>B</span>y its explicit language, that provision is only <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">conditional.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span></i>It does not require majority-representation as a prerequisite for bargaining.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It simply states that<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>“<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Representatives
designated or selected for the purposes of collective bargaining by the
majority of the employees in a unit appropriate for such purposes, shall be the
exclusive representatives of all the employees in such unit for the purposes of
collective bargaining....”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></i>Thus, in
plain English, it applies only <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">if, when,
and after</i> a union represents a majority of the employees in an appropriate
bargaining unit.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Duty-to-bargain
requirements are contained only in <span style="mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;">Sections 7, </span>8(a)(1), and 8(a)(5),
and they are not majority-restricted.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="articleparagraph" style="margin: 6pt 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">Another instance of the report’s “make-believe” is its
allegation of a non-existent quotation from Senator Wagner that “collective
bargaining means majority rule,” which Wagner did not say.</span><a href="file:///C:/Users/Morris/Documents/Blue%20Eagle%20Rule%202d/Blog%20US%20Chamber%20Blue%20Eagle.docx" name="_ftnref12" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn12;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;">[12]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a><span style="font-family: Arial;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Reference to the cited page of legislative
history reveals no such quotation.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In
fact, all of the majority-rule statements attributed to Wagner and others,
including “commentary by scholars and contemporaneous labor officials” and statements
in Senate and House reports,</span><a href="file:///C:/Users/Morris/Documents/Blue%20Eagle%20Rule%202d/Blog%20US%20Chamber%20Blue%20Eagle.docx" name="_ftnref13" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn13;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;">[13]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a><span style="font-family: Arial;">
were <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">expressly</i> directed to the
bargaining process <i>after </i>a union had been designated by a majority of a unit’s
employees, not before such designation.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>There was wide agreement by the proponents of the Act<span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Arial;">—</span>but not by the employer lobby<span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Arial;">—that post-Section 9(a) </span>majority-representation
bargaining should be conducted exclusively with majority unions, not with a
plurality of unions, which the employer groups favored.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Majority/exclusive representation was deemed best
suited to produce effective collective bargaining<span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Arial;">—</span>a concept that was never disputed in the <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Blue Eagle</i> or by any union presentation to the NLRB in the <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Dick’s</i> case or thereafter.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Minority-union bargaining that <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">preceeds</i> majority-bargaining, however, was
carefully protected without fanfare, for it was not deemed contraversal. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="articleparagraph" style="margin: 6pt 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">The report also errs in its affirmations</span><a href="file:///C:/Users/Morris/Documents/Blue%20Eagle%20Rule%202d/Blog%20US%20Chamber%20Blue%20Eagle.docx" name="_ftnref14" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn14;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;">[14]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a><span style="font-family: Arial;">
of the General Council’s allegations in <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Dick’s
</i>regarding the Board’s holdings in prior cases.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The General Counsel’s contention that the
Board has consistently declined to find violations of Sections 8(a)(1) and/or
8(a)(5) when employers have refused to recognize or bargain with members-only
unions is untrue, because the Board has never been requested to so rule<span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Arial;">—</span>except in irrelevant cases where the
minority union was improperly seeking or claiming recognition as a majority/exclusive
Section 9(a) representative.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>There have
been no cases where a minority union was seeking recognition and bargaining not
as a Section 9(a) majority union but as a members-only union, hence the Board
has never had occasion to rule on such a case.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="articleparagraph" style="margin: 6pt 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">Although the report purports to present relevant legislative
history, its descriptions are slanted and inaccurate.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It ignores the real history.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In fact, the most vital piece of legislative history
is conspicuous by its absence.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It never
mentions the <span style="mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;">unassailable fact that when Section 8(5)</span><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;">—</span><span style="mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;">the Act’s specific duty-to-bargain unfair-labor-practice
provision</span><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;">—</span><span style="mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;">was belatedly added to the Wagner bill,
it was accompanied by a “smoking gun” historical event from the Senate committee’s
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">mark-up</i> consideration which shows that
Congress <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">expressly rejected</i> an
alternative provision that would have limited the 8(a)(5) bargaining requirement
to representatives “</span>chosen as provided in Section 9(a),” i.e., only to
unions that had already achieved majority representation in an appropriate
bargaining unit.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>As the Supreme Court
has emphasized, “[f]ew principles of statutory construction are more compelling
than the proposition that Congress does not intend <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">sub silentio</i> to enact statutory language that it has earlier
discarded in favor of other language.”</span><a href="file:///C:/Users/Morris/Documents/Blue%20Eagle%20Rule%202d/Blog%20US%20Chamber%20Blue%20Eagle.docx" name="_ftnref15" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn15;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;">[15]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a><span style="font-family: Arial;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="articleparagraph" style="margin: 6pt 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Arial;"><span style="mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;">Rather than recognizing or even trying to
explain the foregoing precise Congressional rejection of majority-representation
as a perquisite for collective bargaining, the report follows the lead of the <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Dick’s</i> Memorandum in grasping at an
inaccurate legislative straw.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It claims
there was a Congressional <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">rejection</i>
of a minority-bargaining provision, when in fact what actually occurred supports
the opposite thesis.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The claim is to a decision
by the legislative drafters not to include in the bill that was ultimately filed
in Congress a ten-month-old oddly-worded provision, which was replaced</span><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;">—</span><span style="mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;">hence not rejected</span><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;">—</span><span style="mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;">by an unambiguous broad provision that clearly
allowed minority-union bargaining. The provision cited in the report was thus <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">never even presented to Congress</i>, hence
never <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">rejected </i>by Congress<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></i>Nevertheless,
that weak straw formed the basis for the “chutzpah” assertion on the report’s opening
and closing pages that members-only representation was “expressly rejected” by
Congress.<a href="file:///C:/Users/Morris/Documents/Blue%20Eagle%20Rule%202d/Blog%20US%20Chamber%20Blue%20Eagle.docx" name="_ftnref16" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn16;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;">[16]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a>
<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<br />
<div class="articleparagraph" style="margin: 6pt 0in;">
<span style="mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="font-family: Arial;">Not only was minority bargaining not
expressly rejected, it was expressly protected, for pre-majority members-only
bargaining was recognized as a normal means for a union to grow in size until
it reached majority/exclusive bargaining status.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Although the report acknowledges the <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Blue Eagle’s</i> reference to this
“stepping-stone approach to unionization,”</span><a href="file:///C:/Users/Morris/Documents/Blue%20Eagle%20Rule%202d/Blog%20US%20Chamber%20Blue%20Eagle.docx" name="_ftnref17" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn17;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;">[17]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a><span style="font-family: Arial;"> it ignores
the legislative and textual evidence that supports that observation.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<br />
<div class="articleparagraph" style="margin: 6pt 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Arial;"><span style="mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;">The report also leaves the impression that
minority-union members-only bargaining was and is intended to be a substitute
for majority bargaining, which is definitely not the case.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The stepping-stone stage of bargaining was
intended to lead to and thus actually increase majority bargaining, </span><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;">a</span><span style="mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;">nd in the early years it did so.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>As the <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Blue
Eagle </i>and related presentations to the Board by the involved unions have
made quite clear, m</span>ajority bargaining was simply the <i>ultimate </i><span style="mso-bidi-font-style: italic;">intent </span>of the <span style="text-transform: uppercase;">NLRA </span>and its framers.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>T<span style="mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;">he
report’s conclusion that the system, “as defined by Morris, reflects a major
paradigm shift in a direction that was expressly rejected by Congress,”<a href="file:///C:/Users/Morris/Documents/Blue%20Eagle%20Rule%202d/Blog%20US%20Chamber%20Blue%20Eagle.docx" name="_ftnref18" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn18;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;">[18]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a> is
grossly untrue.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>As the record has shown,
although mature majority-bargaining was the ultimate objective of the Act,
pre-majority bargaining was protected and never rejected by Congress, expressly
or otherwise.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<br />
<div class="articleparagraph" style="margin: 6pt 0in;">
<span style="mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="font-family: Arial;">The report is also in error in its
assertion that<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>members-only bargaining
would “undermine the intent of the NLRA.”</span><a href="file:///C:/Users/Morris/Documents/Blue%20Eagle%20Rule%202d/Blog%20US%20Chamber%20Blue%20Eagle.docx" name="_ftnref19" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn19;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;">[19]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a><span style="font-family: Arial;">
Notwithstanding the persistent efforts of employer lobbyists to claim otherwise
and their failed legislative efforts to change the Act’s intent,</span><a href="file:///C:/Users/Morris/Documents/Blue%20Eagle%20Rule%202d/Blog%20US%20Chamber%20Blue%20Eagle.docx" name="_ftnref20" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn20;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;">[20]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a><span style="font-family: Arial;"> the
NLRA </span></span><span style="font-family: Arial;"><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Arial;">has always had but one </span><span style="mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;">statutory
intent.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>As Section 1 of the Act
declares, “the <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">policy</i> of the United
States...</span><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Arial;">is encouraging the
practice and procedure of collective bargaining [and] protecting [workers’]
full freedom of association, self-organization, and designation of
representatives of their own choosing, for the purpose of negotiating the terms
and conditions of their employment or other mutual aid or protection.”<a href="file:///C:/Users/Morris/Documents/Blue%20Eagle%20Rule%202d/Blog%20US%20Chamber%20Blue%20Eagle.docx" name="_ftnref21" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn21;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;">[21]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a> <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>That remains the Act’s intent, and resumption
of members-only collective bargaining will be consistent with that intent.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<br />
<div class="articleparagraph" style="margin: 6pt 0in;">
<span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Arial;"><span style="font-family: Arial;">I have
presented the above in an effort to disclose the truth behind the Chamber’s
falsehoods, but I have left for last the Chamber’s most basic falsehood, which
is its creation of the impression that it favors majority rule for American employees.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If it really favors majority rule it would
not oppose unions bargaining for their members only until majority-status is
achieved.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And it would not oppose efforts
to make NLRB elections truly democratic.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>It would thus favor unions having equal access to the voters prior to an
election, including providing an opportunity to address employees in a manner
equivalent to the employer’s “captive-audience” presentations; it would favor
prohibiting employer representatives from engaging in one-on-one anti-union
contacts with employees prior to an election; it would also favor strong and
meaningful penalties when employers seriously interfere with employees’ exercise
of their Section 7 rights; and it would favor holding elections in neutral
locations without undue delay.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Favoring
majority-rule under present conditions is but code for disfavoring any form of
union representation and collective bargaining.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<br />
<div class="articleparagraph" style="margin: 6pt 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Arial;"><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Arial;">Notwithstanding
anticipated opposition from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and its allies, I
expect the <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Blue Eagle</i> to fly and land
again, and to bring with it a renewal of the collective-bargaining process that
the American middle class so badly needs. </span><span style="mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<br />
<div class="articleparagraph" style="margin: 6pt 0in;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="font-family: Arial;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></span></b></div>
<br />
<div style="mso-element: footnote-list;">
<!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><br clear="all" />
<hr align="left" size="1" width="33%" />
<!--[endif]-->
<div id="ftn1" style="mso-element: footnote;">
<div class="FootnoteText1" style="margin: 0in 0in 12pt;">
<a href="file:///C:/Users/Morris/Documents/Blue%20Eagle%20Rule%202d/Blog%20US%20Chamber%20Blue%20Eagle.docx" name="_ftn1" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn1;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-variant: small-caps;"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 10pt; font-variant: small-caps; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;">[1]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></span></a><span style="font-size: x-small;"><span style="font-family: Arial;"> <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">The Blue Eagle Has Landed:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The Paradigm Shift from Majority Rule to
Members-Only-Representation</i> (<span style="font-variant: small-caps;">U.S.
Chamber of Commerce, Workforce Freedom Initiative</span> 2014) http://www.workforcefreedom.com/publications/new-study-blue-eagle-has-landed-paradigm-shift-majority-rule-members-only-representation
(hereinafter report). <o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
</div>
<div id="ftn2" style="mso-element: footnote;">
<div class="FootnoteText1" style="margin: 0in 0in 12pt;">
<a href="file:///C:/Users/Morris/Documents/Blue%20Eagle%20Rule%202d/Blog%20US%20Chamber%20Blue%20Eagle.docx" name="_ftn2" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn2;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 10pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;">[2]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a><span style="font-size: x-small;"><span style="font-family: Arial;">
Charles J. Morris, <span style="font-variant: small-caps; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;">The Blue Eagle at Work: Reclaiming
Democratic Rights in the American Workplace</span> (Cornell Univ. Press 2005)
(hereinafter <span style="font-variant: small-caps;">Blue Eagle</span>).<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
</div>
<div id="ftn3" style="mso-element: footnote;">
<div class="FootnoteText1" style="margin: 0in 0in 12pt;">
<a href="file:///C:/Users/Morris/Documents/Blue%20Eagle%20Rule%202d/Blog%20US%20Chamber%20Blue%20Eagle.docx" name="_ftn3" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn3;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 10pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;">[3]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a><span style="font-size: x-small;"><span style="font-family: Arial;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Id.,</i> at p. 40<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
</div>
<div id="ftn4" style="mso-element: footnote;">
<div class="FootnoteText1" style="margin: 0in 0in 12pt;">
<a href="file:///C:/Users/Morris/Documents/Blue%20Eagle%20Rule%202d/Blog%20US%20Chamber%20Blue%20Eagle.docx" name="_ftn4" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn4;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 10pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;">[4]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a><span style="font-size: x-small;"><span style="font-family: Arial;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Union Recognition as Shown in Contracts</i>,
1A L.R.R.M. (BNA) 781 (1938).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
</div>
<div id="ftn5" style="mso-element: footnote;">
<div class="FootnoteText1" style="margin: 0in 0in 12pt;">
<a href="file:///C:/Users/Morris/Documents/Blue%20Eagle%20Rule%202d/Blog%20US%20Chamber%20Blue%20Eagle.docx" name="_ftn5" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn5;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 10pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;">[5]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a><span style="font-size: x-small;"><span style="font-family: Arial;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Arial;">It
Happened in Steel</span></i><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Arial;">, <span style="font-variant: small-caps;">Fortune Magazine, </span>Vol. XV pp. 91-94,
176, 179-180<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>(May 1937).</span><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
</div>
<div id="ftn6" style="mso-element: footnote;">
<div class="FootnoteText1" style="margin: 0in 0in 12pt;">
<a href="file:///C:/Users/Morris/Documents/Blue%20Eagle%20Rule%202d/Blog%20US%20Chamber%20Blue%20Eagle.docx" name="_ftn6" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn6;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 10pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;">[6]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a><span style="font-size: x-small;"><span style="font-family: Arial;">
See <span style="font-variant: small-caps;">Blue Eagle</span> at 85-88<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>and nn. 35-44 (analyzing NLRB election
results).<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
</div>
<div id="ftn7" style="mso-element: footnote;">
<div class="Style6" style="margin: 6pt 0in;">
<a href="file:///C:/Users/Morris/Documents/Blue%20Eagle%20Rule%202d/Blog%20US%20Chamber%20Blue%20Eagle.docx" name="_ftn7" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn7;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="color: black; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">[7]</span></span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a><span style="font-family: Arial;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">
NLRB case No. 6-CA-24821.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
</div>
<div id="ftn8" style="mso-element: footnote;">
<div class="FootnoteText1" style="margin: 0in 0in 12pt;">
<a href="file:///C:/Users/Morris/Documents/Blue%20Eagle%20Rule%202d/Blog%20US%20Chamber%20Blue%20Eagle.docx" name="_ftn8" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn8;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 10pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;">[8]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a><span style="font-size: x-small;"><span style="font-family: Arial;">
Report at p<span style="mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;"> 21</span>.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
</div>
<div id="ftn9" style="mso-element: footnote;">
<div class="FootnoteText1" style="margin: 0in 0in 12pt;">
<a href="file:///C:/Users/Morris/Documents/Blue%20Eagle%20Rule%202d/Blog%20US%20Chamber%20Blue%20Eagle.docx" name="_ftn9" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn9;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 10pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;">[9]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a><span style="font-size: x-small;"><span style="font-family: Arial;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Id.,</i> at p. 6.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Emphasis added. <o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
</div>
<div id="ftn10" style="mso-element: footnote;">
<div class="FootnoteText1" style="margin: 0in 0in 12pt;">
<a href="file:///C:/Users/Morris/Documents/Blue%20Eagle%20Rule%202d/Blog%20US%20Chamber%20Blue%20Eagle.docx" name="_ftn10" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn10;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 10pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;">[10]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a><span style="font-size: x-small;"><span style="font-family: Arial;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Id.,</i> at p. 9.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
</div>
<div id="ftn11" style="mso-element: footnote;">
<div class="FootnoteText1" style="margin: 0in 0in 12pt;">
<a href="file:///C:/Users/Morris/Documents/Blue%20Eagle%20Rule%202d/Blog%20US%20Chamber%20Blue%20Eagle.docx" name="_ftn11" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn11;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 10pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;">[11]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a><span style="font-size: x-small;"><span style="font-family: Arial;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Id.,</i> at p.16.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
</div>
<div id="ftn12" style="mso-element: footnote;">
<div class="FootnoteText1" style="margin: 0in 0in 12pt;">
<a href="file:///C:/Users/Morris/Documents/Blue%20Eagle%20Rule%202d/Blog%20US%20Chamber%20Blue%20Eagle.docx" name="_ftn12" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn12;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 10pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;">[12]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a><span style="font-size: x-small;"><span style="font-family: Arial;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Id.,</i> at p. 5.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
</div>
<div id="ftn13" style="mso-element: footnote;">
<div class="FootnoteText1" style="margin: 0in 0in 12pt;">
<a href="file:///C:/Users/Morris/Documents/Blue%20Eagle%20Rule%202d/Blog%20US%20Chamber%20Blue%20Eagle.docx" name="_ftn13" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn13;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 10pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;">[13]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a><span style="font-size: x-small;"><span style="font-family: Arial;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Id.,</i> at pp. 16 & 17.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
</div>
<div id="ftn14" style="mso-element: footnote;">
<div class="FootnoteText1" style="margin: 0in 0in 12pt;">
<a href="file:///C:/Users/Morris/Documents/Blue%20Eagle%20Rule%202d/Blog%20US%20Chamber%20Blue%20Eagle.docx" name="_ftn14" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn14;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 10pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;">[14]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a><span style="font-size: x-small;"><span style="font-family: Arial;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Id.,</i> at p. 18.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
</div>
<div id="ftn15" style="mso-element: footnote;">
<div class="FootnoteText1" style="margin: 0in 0in 12pt;">
<a href="file:///C:/Users/Morris/Documents/Blue%20Eagle%20Rule%202d/Blog%20US%20Chamber%20Blue%20Eagle.docx" name="_ftn15" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn15;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 10pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;">[15]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a><span style="font-size: x-small;"><span style="font-family: Arial;">
<i>INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, </i>480 U.S. 421, 442-43 (1987).<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
</div>
<div id="ftn16" style="mso-element: footnote;">
<div class="FootnoteText1" style="margin: 0in 0in 12pt;">
<a href="file:///C:/Users/Morris/Documents/Blue%20Eagle%20Rule%202d/Blog%20US%20Chamber%20Blue%20Eagle.docx" name="_ftn16" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn16;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 10pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;">[16]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a><span style="font-size: x-small;"><span style="font-family: Arial;">
Report at p. 1 & n. 3 & p. 40.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
</div>
<div id="ftn17" style="mso-element: footnote;">
<div class="FootnoteText1" style="margin: 0in 0in 12pt;">
<a href="file:///C:/Users/Morris/Documents/Blue%20Eagle%20Rule%202d/Blog%20US%20Chamber%20Blue%20Eagle.docx" name="_ftn17" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn17;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 10pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;">[17]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a><span style="font-size: x-small;"><span style="font-family: Arial;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Id.,</i> at p. <span style="mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;">14</span>.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
</div>
<div id="ftn18" style="mso-element: footnote;">
<div class="FootnoteText1" style="margin: 0in 0in 12pt;">
<a href="file:///C:/Users/Morris/Documents/Blue%20Eagle%20Rule%202d/Blog%20US%20Chamber%20Blue%20Eagle.docx" name="_ftn18" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn18;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 10pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;">[18]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a><span style="font-size: x-small;"><span style="font-family: Arial;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Id.,</i> at p. <span style="mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;">40</span>.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
</div>
<div id="ftn19" style="mso-element: footnote;">
<div class="FootnoteText1" style="margin: 0in 0in 12pt;">
<a href="file:///C:/Users/Morris/Documents/Blue%20Eagle%20Rule%202d/Blog%20US%20Chamber%20Blue%20Eagle.docx" name="_ftn19" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn19;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 10pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;">[19]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a><span style="font-size: x-small;"><span style="font-family: Arial;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Id.,</i> at p.<span style="mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;"> 6 and elsewhere</span>.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
</div>
<div id="ftn20" style="mso-element: footnote;">
<div class="FootnoteText1" style="margin: 12pt 0in;">
<a href="file:///C:/Users/Morris/Documents/Blue%20Eagle%20Rule%202d/Blog%20US%20Chamber%20Blue%20Eagle.docx" name="_ftn20" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn20;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 10pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;">[20]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a><span style="font-size: x-small;"><span style="font-family: Arial;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">See</i> Charles J. Morris, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">How the National Labor Relations Act was
Stolen and How it Can Be Recovered: Taft-Hartley Revisionism and the National
Labor Relations Board’s Appointment Process</i>, 33 <span style="font-variant: small-caps;">Berkeley J. Emp. & Lab. L.</span> 1, 15-46 (2012).<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
</div>
<div id="ftn21" style="mso-element: footnote;">
<div class="FootnoteText1" style="margin: 0in 0in 12pt;">
<a href="file:///C:/Users/Morris/Documents/Blue%20Eagle%20Rule%202d/Blog%20US%20Chamber%20Blue%20Eagle.docx" name="_ftn21" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn21;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 10pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;">[21]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a><span style="font-size: x-small;"><span style="font-family: Arial;">
Emphasis added. <o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
</div>
</div>
Charles J. Morris,http://www.blogger.com/profile/01893087451435558969noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-195362782974793357.post-87181773071225216642014-05-01T11:05:00.002-07:002014-05-01T11:05:16.660-07:00U.S. Chamber of Commerce Predicts Members-Only Collective BargainingCharles J. Morris,http://www.blogger.com/profile/01893087451435558969noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-195362782974793357.post-71552930105159955022013-12-10T15:23:00.002-08:002013-12-10T15:23:58.583-08:00LABOR UNIONS AND THE MIDDLE CLASS--A TANDEM RELATION
<br />
<div align="center" class="correspondencepar" style="margin: 0in 0in 1em; text-align: center;">
<br /><span style="font-family: Arial;">
<span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial;"> </span></span></div>
<div class="correspondencepar" style="margin: 0in 0in 1em;">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">The one-day strikes of fast-food workers and the
“Black Friday” protests by Wal-Mart employees provide stark illumination to the
obscene disparity that exists between the incomes of the wealthiest few at the
top of the economic ladder<span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial;">―</span>including
the Walton family<span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial;">―</span>and
the ever-enlarging population at the bottom of that ladder.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Although this disparity calls attention to
the familiar story of the shrinking middle class, a less-noticed story is the
decline of unions in the private sector.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>A key element missing from both stories, however, is public awareness of
their tandem relationship.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It should be
remembered that <span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Arial;">collective bargaining</span>
by unions was a major factor in building a large and healthy middle class in
the middle last-half of the last century. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Collective bargaining In those years was the
primary factor that set national wage patterns, and nonunion companies<span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial;">―</span>rather than racing to
the bottom<span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial;">―generally </span>remained
nonunion by providing wages and working conditions that were near or equivalent
to those prevailing under union contracts.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>The middle class that resulted was the envy of the world.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="correspondencepar" style="margin: 0in 0in 1em;">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">Those conditions did not last.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>For various reasons, including loss of
manufacturing jobs to foreign competition, out-sourcing of many other jobs, and
failure of organized labor to recoup membership losses in the face of what had
become an unfair election process largely controlled by employers, union membership
and power declined precipitously. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Union
representation became virtually unavailable to most American workers, and private-sector
union membership dropped to a low of 6.6 percent.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Shrinkage of the middle class and decline in
union representation is thus closely related.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="correspondencepar" style="margin: 0in 0in 1em;">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">Today, with political
and media attention focused on the plight of the middle class, many peripheral
remedies have been proposed, such as raising the minimum wage, realigning
federal tax burdens, and expanding various <span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial;">governmental programs to alleviate hardship at the bottom of
the economic scale.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Yet none of these
band-aid approaches reaches the core of the problem of inequitable income
distribution, which is simply the inadequacy of wages in most low and semi-skilled
and non-professional employment. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The
decline in union membership and authority has resulted in an almost total
absence<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>of collective bargaining in the
vast majority of American workplaces, hence an absence of any countervailing
force that might provide workers with the means to obtain their fair share of
the economic pie.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<br />
<div class="correspondencepar" style="margin: 0in 0in 1em;">
<span style="font-family: Arial;"><span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial;">It
is thus unfortunate that little attention is being paid to finding an effective
way to increase the low wage scales that prevail in our economy―a task for
which unions are best suited, but which they can no longer adequately perform
when they represent only a small percentage of the workforce.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Nevertheless, there is some light at the end
of the tunnel.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Although until recently no
serious attention was being given to innovative means by which organized labor
might reverse</span> its membership decline,<span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial;"> there will soon be available a relatively unfamiliar non-legislative
process that can make it much easier for employees to organize and engage in collective
bargaining―a program that could reverse the downward trend of union membership,
return collective bargaining to the role that Congress intended, and therefore spur
revitalization of the middle class.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>That
program is <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">pre-majority members-only
collective bargaining, </i>which is a process that was widely used during the
first decade following passage of the National Labor Relations Act in 1935.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In fact, members-only collective bargaining
contracts were the means by which the Steelworkers organized “Big Steel” and
the means the UAW used to settled its sit-down strikes and sign its first contracts
with General Motors and Chrysler.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Current
conditions are again ripe for the use of this almost forgotten process.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It will now be up to the National Labor
Relations Board (NLRB), with its newly confirmed five permanent members, to revive
that process.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<br />
<div class="correspondencepar" style="margin: 0in 0in 1em;">
<span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial;"><span style="font-family: Arial;">Existing
law specifically guarantees all employees, not just majority employees, the
right to belong to unions and engage in collective bargaining.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Contrary to popular misinformation, the law
does not require a union-majority as a requisite for such bargaining.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The statute so states unambiguously and there
are no legal decisions to the contrary.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>It is only when a union achieves majority membership that it becomes the
exclusive representative of all employees in a bargaining unit, including nonunion
employees; but the duty to bargain with a non-majority union for members only
prior to that majority/exclusivity status remains an important part of the law.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<br />
<div class="correspondencepar" style="margin: 0in 0in 1em;">
<span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial;"><span style="font-family: Arial;">The
time has come for employees and unions to return to that earlier practice of simultaneously
organizing and bargaining exclusively for union members until majority-status
is achieved. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The NLRB will soon have an opportunity
to validate that process, after which employers―including Wal-Mart and
fast-food establishments―can be required to bargain with less-than-majority
groups of employees.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The resulting resurgence
of union membership and collective bargaining should help to accelerate the rebuilding
of the middle-class. <o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<br />
<div class="correspondencepar" style="margin: 0in 0in 1em;">
<span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial;"><o:p><span style="font-family: Arial;"> </span></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="correspondencepar" style="margin: 0in 0in 1em;">
<o:p><span style="font-family: Arial;"> </span></o:p></div>
Charles J. Morris,http://www.blogger.com/profile/01893087451435558969noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-195362782974793357.post-58987703873374537652013-08-01T09:52:00.000-07:002013-08-01T09:52:55.579-07:00
<br />
<div align="center" class="articleparagraph" style="line-height: normal; margin: 6pt 0in; text-align: center;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: large;"> MEMBERS-ONLY COLLECTIVE
BARGAINING: GET <br />
<span style="text-transform: uppercase;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Ready </span>FOR AN OLD CONCEPT WITH A NEW USE</span></b></div>
<div align="center" class="articleparagraph" style="line-height: normal; margin: 6pt 0in; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: large;">by</span></div>
<div align="center" class="articleparagraph" style="line-height: normal; margin: 6pt 0in; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: Arial;"><span style="font-size: large;">Charles J. Morris<br />
<span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Arial;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>©</span><span> 2013 Charles J. Morris<o:p></o:p></span></span></span></div>
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span><br />
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: center;">
<span><span style="font-family: Arial;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-size: small;">This mini-essay is based in part on a speech presented
on March 7, 2013, at a conference on <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">New Models
of Worker Representation </i>sponsored by University of Illinois Labor Education
Program</span>
<!--[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]-->
<!--[endif]--><o:p></o:p></span></span></span></div>
<span style="font-size: large;">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">The following is a response to the on-going search
for new models of union representation and collective bargaining in the
recently released Interim Report to the AFL-CIO Executive Council on AFL-CIO
Pre-Convention Outreach and Engagement.</span></span><a href="file:///C:/Users/Morris/Documents/Blogs/Members-only%20response.docx" name="_ftnref1" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn1;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="color: blue; font-size: large;">[1]</span></span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a><span style="font-family: Arial;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Among its highlighted proposals, the Report acknowledged
that <o:p></o:p></span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span><br />
<div class="quote1" style="margin: 0in 0.5in 1em;">
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: large;">Non-traditional methods such as <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">members only unions </i>[are noteworthy] because they can work in
existing union organizations, especially because they involve workers linked by
their common employer in a process that many see as “perpetual organizing.”</span><a href="file:///C:/Users/Morris/Documents/Blogs/Members-only%20response.docx" name="_ftnref2" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn2;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="color: blue; font-size: large;">[2]</span></span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a><o:p></o:p></div>
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span><span style="font-family: Arial;"><span style="font-size: large;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Members-only
collective bargaining</i> can indeed play a significant role in furthering the
goal which AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka described as “changing the labor
movement to speak for working people now and in the future through growth,
innovation and political action.”</span></span><a href="file:///C:/Users/Morris/Documents/Blogs/Members-only%20response.docx" name="_ftnref3" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn3;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="color: blue; font-size: large;">[3]</span></span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a><o:p></o:p><br />
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span></span><span style="font-family: Arial;"><span style="font-size: large;">The <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Interim
Report</i> records that<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span><br />
<div class="quote1" style="margin: 0in 0.5in 1em;">
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: large;">Collective bargaining was seen by a large segment of participants
as the reason we had a broad, shared prosperity in the decades following World
War II.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Family-supporting wages,
employer-provided benefits, fair treatment at work and the very creation of the
middle class in the United States were direct results of unionism going back to
the 1880s, a big surge in unionism in the 1930s and 1940s, and the resulting <span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Arial;">collective bargaining</span> agreements.</span><a href="file:///C:/Users/Morris/Documents/Blogs/Members-only%20response.docx" name="_ftnref4" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn4;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="color: blue; font-size: large;">[4]</span></span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a><o:p></o:p></div>
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="text-transform: uppercase;">A</span>s the
following discussion will demonstrate, members-only bargaining played an
important role in that latter surge in unionism and collective bargaining,</span></span><a href="file:///C:/Users/Morris/Documents/Blogs/Members-only%20response.docx" name="_ftnref5" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn5;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="color: blue; font-size: large;">[5]</span></span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a><span style="font-family: Arial;"><span style="font-size: large;"> and
there is good reason to believe that it can do so again.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<o:p><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: large;"> </span></o:p><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: large;">It is especially important that the AFL-CIO and
other participants in American labor relations become better acquainted with the
concept of members-only collective bargaining because the <span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Arial;">National Labor Relations Board</span> will
likely be considering that process in the near future.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Validation of this innovative process can be
of immense help in getting American workers back on the road to a robust labor
movement and a major expansion of collective bargaining that will help build a
stronger middle class.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The need for such
a process has been dramatically evidenced by recent work stoppages at various
Wal-Mart and fast-food locations.</span><a href="file:///C:/Users/Morris/Documents/Blogs/Members-only%20response.docx" name="_ftnref6" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn6;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="color: blue; font-size: large;">[6]</span></span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a><span style="font-family: Arial;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Although those walk-outs represent commendable
examples of courageous workers fighting back<span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial;">, they will </span>inevitably be unsuccessful in achieving
significant change. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Despite their legitimate
complaints, those low-wage workers have no effective mean to engage management
in a dialogue about working conditions<span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial;">―</span>much less in a consequential bargaining session that might
significantly improve those conditions.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>They obviously need a union; but in accordance with prevailing conditions
under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA or Act),</span></span><a href="file:///C:/Users/Morris/Documents/Blogs/Members-only%20response.docx" name="_ftnref7" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn7;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="color: blue; font-size: large;">[7]</span></span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: large;">
union representation is virtually unavailable to them and to most other
American workers.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The sad fact is that Wal-Mart
and other anti-union companies are almost always able to prevent their employees
from achieving union representation.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Many<span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial;">―</span>if not most<span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial;">―</span> nonunion companies routinely
indoctrinate their workforce with anti-union rhetoric and frequently engage in
aggressive conduct—both legal and illegal—to successfully discourage any
support for workers organizing into groups for any purpose.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Employment discrimination and discharges for
union activity, and the fear of such retaliation, are commonplace.</span><a href="file:///C:/Users/Morris/Documents/Blogs/Members-only%20response.docx" name="_ftnref8" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn8;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="color: blue; font-size: large;">[8]</span></span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a><span style="font-family: Arial;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span><br />
<div class="correspondencepar" style="margin: 0in 0in 1em;">
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: large;">Now that the <span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Arial;">National
Labor Relations Board, at long last, </span>has been reconstituted with five Senate
confirmed members</span><a href="file:///C:/Users/Morris/Documents/Blogs/Members-only%20response.docx" name="_ftnref9" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn9;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="color: blue; font-size: large;">[9]</span></span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: large;">
and is thus able to again function in accordance with its statutory mandate,
the time is ripe to bring attention to the subject of members-only bargaining,
for a proposal to validate that process will likely be submitted to the Board soon.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Although the subject of members-only
bargaining is not new, it will seem new to many because it is somewhat different
from the conventional union organizing and bargaining process to which we have
become accustomed.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The anticipated proposal,
however, is not a pie-in-the-sky plan that has no chance of becoming a reality.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It is a highly credible program which, unlike
the ill-fated Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA), can become effective without the
passage of new Congressional legislation, although fierce opposition from
Republican members of Congress is surely to be expected.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This proposal is of major importance.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It has the potential of becoming the
blockbuster that organized labor so urgently needs to reverse the downward trend
of private-sector union membership, which has reached a new low of 6.6 percent.</span><a href="file:///C:/Users/Morris/Documents/Blogs/Members-only%20response.docx" name="_ftnref10" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn10;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="color: blue; font-size: large;">[10]</span></span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a><span style="font-family: Arial;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span><span style="font-family: Arial;"><span style="font-size: large;">Despite the public’s unfamiliarity with this program,
it is a process that is actually imbedded in both the text and history of the <span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Arial;">National Labor Relations Act.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It is, in fact, a process that was widely
recognized and commonly employed during the decade following passage of that Act
in 1935.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It consists of a practice and
procedure whereby a minority union engages in collective bargaining for its
members only<span style="color: black;">―but </span>not for any other employees.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It is an active<span style="color: black;"> process
that continues until</span> that union represents a majority of all the
employees in an appropriate bargaining unit<span style="color: black;">―</span> if
and when that occurs<span style="color: black;">―</span>at which time the union
becomes a conventional majority-exclusive union obligated to represent all
employees in the unit.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span>It is
noteworthy that during those early years following passage of the Act,
members-only collective-bargaining contracts that resulted from such pre-majority
bargaining were as prevalent as majority-exclusivity union contracts, and their
coverage might even have been more extensive<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">.</i></span></span><a href="file:///C:/Users/Morris/Documents/Blogs/Members-only%20response.docx" name="_ftnref11" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn11;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="color: blue; font-size: large;">[11]</span></span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a><span style="font-family: Arial;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In the late thirties and early forties, negotiating
and signing such members-only agreements was a widely followed route to conventional
majority-union status.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>That is how the
Steelworkers organized the “big steel” industry and how the United Auto Workers,
following its Michigan sit-down strikes, signed its first contracts with the General
Motors and Chrysler corporations.</span></span><a href="file:///C:/Users/Morris/Documents/Blogs/Members-only%20response.docx" name="_ftnref12" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn12;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="color: blue; font-size: large;">[12]</span></span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a><span style="font-family: Arial;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Those less-than-majority members-only
agreements were also popular in other industries,</span></span><a href="file:///C:/Users/Morris/Documents/Blogs/Members-only%20response.docx" name="_ftnref13" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn13;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="color: blue; font-size: large;">[13]</span></span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: large;">
and almost all of those minority unions under those agreements grew in
membership and were later recognized as conventional majority-exclusive unions.</span><a href="file:///C:/Users/Morris/Documents/Blogs/Members-only%20response.docx" name="_ftnref14" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn14;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="color: blue; font-size: large;">[14]</span></span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a><span style="font-family: Arial;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>D<span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Arial;">uring
those early years the legality of these pre-majority members-only collective-bargaining
agreements was confirmed by both the Supreme Court and the NLRB in several
important cases.<a href="file:///C:/Users/Morris/Documents/Blogs/Members-only%20response.docx" name="_ftnref15" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn15;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="color: blue;">[15]</span></span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a><o:p></o:p></span></span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span><br />
<div class="correspondencepar" style="margin: 0in 0in 1em;">
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: large;">Notwithstanding that successful history,
members-only agreements have not been used anywhere in recent decades.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This non-usage occurred because during the
early Wagner-Act years unions discovered that NLRB election procedures almost
always provided an easier, faster, and less expensive way to attain majority/exclusive
representation.</span><a href="file:///C:/Users/Morris/Documents/Blogs/Members-only%20response.docx" name="_ftnref16" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn16;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="color: blue; font-size: large;">[16]</span></span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a><span style="font-family: Arial;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Consequently, with the passage of time, institutional
memory faded and the slower members-only route to organizing and bargaining was
effectively forgotten.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Thus, through
force of habit that grew into established custom, most of the labor-management
community came to believe that only majority unions have the right to bargain, and
that misperceived belief evolved into conventional wisdom. <o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Arial;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: large;">Needless to
say, we know only too well what eventually happened to the NLRB election process.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Elections became increasingly unfair; <span style="color: black;">they became </span>employer-controlled battlegrounds that made
union representation virtually unavailable to most American workers who wanted
and needed that representation.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Therefore
my purpose here is to acquaint the reader with an alternative means to change
the present scenario so that collective bargaining can once again become widely
available in the American workplace.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>That
alternative is to return to the same members-only organizing and bargaining
process that workers and unions employed many decades ago.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>An NLRB rulemaking petition to that effect, i.e.,
one that will confirm the validity of pre-majority members-only collective
bargaining, <span style="color: black;">is expected to be </span>filed soon. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Actually, an effort to obtain that
confirmation from the Board was begun eight years ago by the Steelworkers Union</span><a href="file:///C:/Users/Morris/Documents/Blogs/Members-only%20response.docx" name="_ftnref17" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn17;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="color: blue; font-size: large;">[17]</span></span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: large;"> when
it organized a group of workers at the Dick’s Sporting Goods warehouse near
Pittsburgh for whom it requested members-only minority-union recognition and
bargaining.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>When the employer refused to
bargain, the Steelworkers filed an unfair labor-practice-charge</span><a href="file:///C:/Users/Morris/Documents/Blogs/Members-only%20response.docx" name="_ftnref18" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn18;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="color: blue; font-size: large;">[18]</span></span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: large;"> for
which the Bush-appointed General Counsel of the Board<span style="color: black;">―</span>not
surprisingly<span style="color: black;">―</span>refused to issue a <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>complaint, thereby preventing the Board from deciding
the issue.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Undaunted, the Steelworkers,
joined by six other national unions<span style="color: black;">―</span>the IBEW,</span><a href="file:///C:/Users/Morris/Documents/Blogs/Members-only%20response.docx" name="_ftnref19" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn19;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="color: blue; font-size: large;">[19]</span></span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: large;"> CWA,</span><a href="file:///C:/Users/Morris/Documents/Blogs/Members-only%20response.docx" name="_ftnref20" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn20;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="color: blue; font-size: large;">[20]</span></span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: large;"> UAW,</span><a href="file:///C:/Users/Morris/Documents/Blogs/Members-only%20response.docx" name="_ftnref21" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn21;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="color: blue; font-size: large;">[21]</span></span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: large;">
Machinists,</span><a href="file:///C:/Users/Morris/Documents/Blogs/Members-only%20response.docx" name="_ftnref22" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn22;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="color: blue; font-size: large;">[22]</span></span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: large;"> UE,</span><a href="file:///C:/Users/Morris/Documents/Blogs/Members-only%20response.docx" name="_ftnref23" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn23;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="color: blue; font-size: large;">[23]</span></span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: large;">
and California Nurses’ Association</span><a href="file:///C:/Users/Morris/Documents/Blogs/Members-only%20response.docx" name="_ftnref24" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn24;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="color: blue; font-size: large;">[24]</span></span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a><span style="font-family: Arial;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="color: black;">―</span>countered that action by filing a rulemaking petition</span></span><a href="file:///C:/Users/Morris/Documents/Blogs/Members-only%20response.docx" name="_ftnref25" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn25;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="color: blue; font-size: large;">[25]</span></span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: large;"> which
urged the Board to issue a binding rule under its then little-used rulemaking
authority that would recognize the validity of members-only pre-majority bargaining.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>That action was later joined by a second
petition filed by the Change-to-Win federation,</span><a href="file:///C:/Users/Morris/Documents/Blogs/Members-only%20response.docx" name="_ftnref26" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn26;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="color: blue; font-size: large;">[26]</span></span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: large;"> which
then consisted of seven national unions<span style="color: black;">―</span>the SEIU,</span><a href="file:///C:/Users/Morris/Documents/Blogs/Members-only%20response.docx" name="_ftnref27" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn27;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="color: blue; font-size: large;">[27]</span></span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: large;">
Teamsters,</span><a href="file:///C:/Users/Morris/Documents/Blogs/Members-only%20response.docx" name="_ftnref28" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn28;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="color: blue; font-size: large;">[28]</span></span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: large;"> UFCW,</span><a href="file:///C:/Users/Morris/Documents/Blogs/Members-only%20response.docx" name="_ftnref29" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn29;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="color: blue; font-size: large;">[29]</span></span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: large;">
UNITE-HERE,</span><a href="file:///C:/Users/Morris/Documents/Blogs/Members-only%20response.docx" name="_ftnref30" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn30;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="color: blue; font-size: large;">[30]</span></span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: large;">
Carpenters,</span><a href="file:///C:/Users/Morris/Documents/Blogs/Members-only%20response.docx" name="_ftnref31" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn31;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="color: blue; font-size: large;">[31]</span></span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: large;">
Laborers,</span><a href="file:///C:/Users/Morris/Documents/Blogs/Members-only%20response.docx" name="_ftnref32" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn32;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="color: blue; font-size: large;">[32]</span></span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: large;"> and United
Farm Workers.</span><a href="file:///C:/Users/Morris/Documents/Blogs/Members-only%20response.docx" name="_ftnref33" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn33;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="color: blue; font-size: large;">[33]</span></span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a><span style="font-family: Arial;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The two petitions remained quietly on the
Board’s docket until the latter part of President Obama’s first term when, because
of severe time pressures relating to the pendency of several other major
rulemaking and adjudicatory cases, the Board carefully dismissed them <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">without prejudice</i>, thus deliberately avoiding
a potential dismissal <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">with prejudice</i> by
a pro-management Republican Labor Board had President Obama had not been reelected.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span><span style="font-family: Arial;"><span style="font-size: large;">After the filing of the anticipated new rulemaking
petition, members-only bargaining should<span style="color: black;">―</span>ultimately<span style="color: black;">―</span>become the law of the land.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>That outcome is evidenced by the overwhelming
strength of the legal case that supports this concept, w<span style="color: black;">hich is an assessment </span>confirmed by many outstanding labor law authorities,
including 46 labor-law professors who signed an amici brief to the Board supporting
the two earlier petitions.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Notwithstanding
the opposition that can be expected from employer organizations and their Republican
allies with well-funded judicial appeals, the concept of enforceable
pre-majority members-only collective bargaining under the National Labor
Relations Act should eventually become a reality. <o:p></o:p></span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span><span style="font-family: Arial;"><span style="font-size: large;">Accordingly, It is important for the labor relations
community to become well acquainted with the idea that the repeatedly asserted conventional
wisdom that workers cannot be represented by a union unless and until they are
part of a union-majority is not a correct statement of the law.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Regardless of what became standard practice, there
is nothing in the Act<span style="color: black;">―not a single </span>provision<span style="color: black;">―</span>that makes majority representation a prerequisite
for collective bargaining. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The text of
the statute governing this issue is brief and unambiguous<span style="color: black;">―</span>it is plain English that does not require specialized
knowledge or a law degree to understand its meaning.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: large;">The place to begin examining that text is with Section
7, the heart of the Act that is sometimes called labor’s “bill of rights.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It simply states unequivocally and without any
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">majority</i> prerequisite that “<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Employees shall have the right...to form,
join, or assist labor organizations [and] to bargain collectively through
representatives of their own choosing.”</i><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>The principal enforcement device for that right is Section 8(a)(1), which
states that it is “<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">an unfair labor
practice for an employer to interfere with...the exercise” of that right “guaranteed
in section 7</i>.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The Supreme Court, in
its first case that reviewed the Act, characterized that guarantee as “a
fundamental” right,</span><a href="file:///C:/Users/Morris/Documents/Blogs/Members-only%20response.docx" name="_ftnref34" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn34;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Arial;"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="color: blue; font-size: large;">[34]</span></span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></span></a><span style="font-family: Arial;"><span style="font-size: large;">
thus underscoring its universal application to <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">all</i> employees covered by the Act, not just to those who are part of
an arbitrary majority.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span><span style="font-family: Arial;"><span style="font-size: large;">The only provision of the Act that refers to <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">majority representation</i> is Section 9(a),
which is a <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">conditional</i> provision that
specifies that if and when a union represents a majority of the employees in an
appropriate bargaining unit it becomes the exclusive representative of all the
employees in that unit.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>That <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">conditional</i> meaning is clear.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Here, verbatim, is its pertinent text:<o:p></o:p></span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span><br />
<div class="quote1" style="margin: 0in 0.5in 1em;">
<span style="font-family: Arial;"><span style="font-size: large;">Representatives designated or selected for the purposes of
collective bargaining by the majority of the employees in a unit appropriate
for such purposes, shall be the exclusive representatives of all the employees
in such unit for the purposes of collective bargaining....<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial;"><span style="font-size: large;">Section 9(a) thus says nothing about majority status being a
prerequisite for collective bargaining.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>It simply stipulates that if a union does in fact represents a majority
of the employees in an appropriate unit, it must bargain for everyone in that
unit, including any nonunion employees<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial;">―</span></i>which is the Act’s intended
version of <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">mature</i> collective
bargaining, but not its only version of such bargaining.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span></span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: large;">Congress also recognized and protected <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">pre-majority</i> collective bargaining, a
logical process that can be a precursor leading <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>to mature majority bargaining.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Section 9(a) says nothing about the <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">duty</i> to bargain.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>That duty is based on Section 7, enforced by Section
8(a)(1), as previously noted, and also on the reinforcing provision of Section
8(a)(5), which expressly defines an employer’s refusal to “bargain
collectively”</span><a href="file:///C:/Users/Morris/Documents/Blogs/Members-only%20response.docx" name="_ftnref35" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn35;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="color: blue; font-size: large;">[35]</span></span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: large;">
as a specific unfair labor practice, thereby complementing and reinforcing the broad
unfair-labor-practice requirement of Section 8(a)(1), which is applicable to
all the rights in Section 7. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And there
is no majority requirement in Section 8(a)(5); the plain message in that
provision, that a union majority is not a prerequisite for the duty to bargain,
is even supported by a “smoking-gun” in the Act’s legislative history, for
Congress expressly considered and specifically rejected<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"> </i>a draft of Section 8(a)(5) that would have limited the duty to
bargain to majority unions only.</span><a href="file:///C:/Users/Morris/Documents/Blogs/Members-only%20response.docx" name="_ftnref36" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn36;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="color: blue; font-size: large;">[36]</span></span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a><o:p></o:p></div>
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span><br />
<div class="correspondencepar" style="margin: 0in 0in 1em;">
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: large;">Although the Supreme Court and the Board long ago validated
minority-union contracts that resulted from pre-majority collective bargaining,</span><a href="file:///C:/Users/Morris/Documents/Blogs/Members-only%20response.docx" name="_ftnref37" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn37;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="color: blue; font-size: large;">[37]</span></span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a><span style="font-family: Arial;"><span style="font-size: large;">
there has never been a case reviewing the enforceability of the right to engage
in such bargaining.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Accordingly<span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial;">―</span>although the text of the
Act provides clear indication that such enforceable right exists<span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial;">―</span>in view of the passage
of time since it was last widely used, confirmation of that right by the Board,
with judicial approval, will now be appropriate.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Indeed, for enforcement purposes it will be
necessary.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: large;">Nevertheless<span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial;">―</span>notwithstanding the legal validity of the process<span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial;">―the wisdom of </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>reintroducing that concept into the realm of
American labor relations should also take into consideration whether or not its
operation will represent an improvement in those relations.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I am convinced that this program will indeed
have that positive effect.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In fact, there
is reason to believe that not only will the nation’s labor relations be
improved, the economic condition of the American middle class will be significantly
strengthened,</span><a href="file:///C:/Users/Morris/Documents/Blogs/Members-only%20response.docx" name="_ftnref38" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn38;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="color: blue; font-size: large;">[38]</span></span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a><span style="font-family: Arial;"><span style="font-size: large;">
thus advancing the country to a stronger economy. <o:p></o:p></span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: large;">Having examined the legal basis for members-only <span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Arial;">collective bargaining, it is now fitting to address
the question of </span>how that process will operate in the diverse workplaces
of the real world.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Before hazarding such
descriptions, however, I want to remind the reader to consider the conditions that
presently exist in many<span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial;">―</span>if
not most<span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial;">―</span>nonunion
companies.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Numerous shortcomings exist in
the hierarchical employment relationship prevailing at those companies, for
example, the absence of employment security under the <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">employment-at-will</i> doctrine that governs that relationship,</span><a href="file:///C:/Users/Morris/Documents/Blogs/Members-only%20response.docx" name="_ftnref39" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn39;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="color: blue; font-size: large;">[39]</span></span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: large;">
and wages of most nonunion employees tend to be severely lower than union wages
for comparable work.</span><a href="file:///C:/Users/Morris/Documents/Blogs/Members-only%20response.docx" name="_ftnref40" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn40;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="color: blue; font-size: large;">[40]</span></span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a><span style="font-family: Arial;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: large;">Despite the statutorily declared national policy of encouraging
the “practice and procedure of collective bargaining” and the protection of
workers’ “full freedom of association,”</span><a href="file:///C:/Users/Morris/Documents/Blogs/Members-only%20response.docx" name="_ftnref41" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn41;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="color: blue; font-size: large;">[41]</span></span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a><span style="font-family: Arial;"><span style="font-size: large;">
employees in nonunion establishments who seek union representation do so at
considerable risk.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Most nonunion companies
respond negatively<span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial;">―</span>and
too often illegally<span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial;">―</span>whenever
their employees show any interest in union representation.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>That same kind of response will undoubtedly
continue<span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial;"> </span>after members-only
bargaining becomes legally recognized<span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial;">―</span>at least in the beginning. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: large;">Nonunion employers who are accustomed to fearing and
opposing unions will surely persist in that opposition.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Many, if not most, will probably continue to employ
combinations of reverse salesmanship and intimidation<span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial;">―</span> frequently illegal<span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial;">―</span>to discourage or block their employees from seeking
or retaining union representation.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>With
members-only bargaining, however, there will be an important difference.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Management’s typical anti-union conduct will prove
less successful because of the absence of a majority-requirement for recognition
and bargaining.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>For example, conduct that
presently succeeds in discouraging employees from signing union cards or voting
for a union, thereby allowing the workplace to remain union free, will not have
a similar effect when used against members or potential members of a
members-only minority union because that union will still be entitled to bargain
for its members regardless of the employer’s conduct.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Because members-only bargaining does not
depend on winning an election, anti-union coercion or other negative conduct may
weaken a minority union but not necessarily destroy it, for as long as there is
a group of employee-members in a union that seeks to bargain on their behalf, the
employer will be required to bargain.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Thus,
although organizing on a members-only basis will not be easy, it will be easier
than organizing through the current lengthy practice of first obtaining
sufficient numbers of signed authorization cards and then engaging in a bitter
and expensive election campaign that is inherently tilted toward the employer.</span><a href="file:///C:/Users/Morris/Documents/Blogs/Members-only%20response.docx" name="_ftnref42" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn42;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="color: blue; font-size: large;">[42]</span></span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a><o:p></o:p><br />
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: large;">Organizing and bargaining on a members-only basis
will thus be different<span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial;">―</span>and
easier.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The following is a brief description
of some of the features of the<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>way in
which members-only unions and their adherents will likely organize and bargain.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Organizing will be unlike pre-election
organizing that presently prevails.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Instead of soliciting for union-authorization cards,</span><a href="file:///C:/Users/Morris/Documents/Blogs/Members-only%20response.docx" name="_ftnref43" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn43;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="color: blue; font-size: large;">[43]</span></span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a><span style="font-family: Arial;"><span style="font-size: large;">
the organizers—whether they be active employees or outside union representatives—will
solicit employees for genuine union membership, which will be promptly offered.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>From the beginning, the union’s organizational
goal will be the building of a viable union rather than merely winning an
election.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This radically different
course of action will call for a totally different mind-set.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span><span style="font-family: Arial;"><span style="font-size: large;">Just as unions organized many years ago before they
became addicted to the election process, they will once again organize by
signing-up employees for union membership rather than for pre-election authorization
cards.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>When the Act was originally <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>passed<span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial;">―</span>both before and after<span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial;">―</span>unions almost always organized and bargained based
on their unity and strength, not on the basis of majority selection; and
organizing and bargaining were conducted as an overlapping process.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Despite strong and often violent employer
opposition, g<span style="display: none; mso-hide: all;">GG</span>roups of workers
with common grievances made commitments—usually with the active encouragement
and assistance of outside union organizers—to become union members, after which
they could confront their employers from positions of combined strength rather
than individual weakness.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>As these
fledgling unions increased their visibility and appeal, they almost always grew
in membership and authority.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>A
contemporary union observer In the early ’40s described that process as
follows:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span><br />
<div class="quote1" style="margin: 0in 0.5in 1em;">
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: large;">[U]nions were free to organize in whatever manner they found
most effective.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Frequently, a union
would build its membership in a shop by first organizing a small group of
workers who had the fortitude to stand strong for the union.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Upon the organization of such group, certain
job improvements would be obtained for them from management.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And this working example of the gains to be
achieved through organization frequently formed the most potent organizational
appeal to other workers in the shop, and they too would join to improve their conditions.</span><a href="file:///C:/Users/Morris/Documents/Blogs/Members-only%20response.docx" name="_ftnref44" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn44;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="color: blue; font-size: large;">44]</span></span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a><span style="font-family: Arial;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: large;">The essence of that old-fashioned process can be
replicated.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Because organizing on a
membership basis creates an authentic agency relationship,</span><a href="file:///C:/Users/Morris/Documents/Blogs/Members-only%20response.docx" name="_ftnref45" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn45;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="color: blue; font-size: large;">[45]</span></span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a><span style="font-family: Arial;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>employees who join the union during its
initial organizing stage will do so with a commitment to the payment of union dues,
albeit moderate in amount.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This is a “put-your-money-where-your-mouth-is”
approach.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Many of these unions will
probably adopt<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>a multi-tiered dues
structure with only a modest fee on joining, which will be followed later by
increases at more mature stages in the bargaining process.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Thus by paying dues<span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial;">―</span>however nominal<span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial;">―</span>employees will become aware that their act of
joining the union represents a serious commitment<span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial;">―indeed, </span>it will be a far superior indication of
voluntary intent than either signing a card or casting a vote.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And these new union members will be encouraged
and expected to participate in various phases of union activity, such as
organizing, electing union stewards and other officers, serving on committees,
and occasionally meeting and negotiating with representatives of management.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>From the beginning, therefore, and throughout
the organizational process, their organizing cry can be “union now,” rather
than “union if we can win an election.” <o:p></o:p></span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span><br />
<div class="correspondencepar" style="margin: 0in 0in 1em;">
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: large;">This combined process of organizing and bargaining will
represent the Section 7 rights mandate in meaningful action, for employees will
be exercising their guaranteed right to join unions and to engage in collective
bargaining regardless of the limits of their numbers.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Although It is undoubtedly true that unions
with only a few members will have little bargaining power, those few members
will at least have the benefit of group presence and the Act’s critical requirement
that with respect to “wages, hours, and other terms and condition of employment”</span><a href="file:///C:/Users/Morris/Documents/Blogs/Members-only%20response.docx" name="_ftnref46" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn46;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="color: blue; font-size: large;">[46]</span></span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: large;">
the employer must deal with them through their union rather than with them individually.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This means that workers, whether by
themselves or with the assistance of union organizers, will henceforth be more
able to join unions when they perceive a need, instead of having to wait months
or even years trying to achieve and exhaust NLRB election procedures.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And as their new union grows in membership
and attains some success in representation and bargaining—even if in the
beginning it only succeeds in becoming a collective voice for common
grievances—it will have established the union’s identity and its right to be
present in the workplace.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And when this
union finally makes its request to bargain collectively, the employer will
either bargain in good faith or become the possible subject of unfair labor
practices.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>NLRB enforcement procedures,
including, when appropriate, temporary injunctions</span><a href="file:///C:/Users/Morris/Documents/Blogs/Members-only%20response.docx" name="_ftnref47" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn47;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="color: blue; font-size: large;">[47]</span></span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: large;">
and other judicial actions,</span><a href="file:///C:/Users/Morris/Documents/Blogs/Members-only%20response.docx" name="_ftnref48" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn48;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="color: blue; font-size: large;">[48]</span></span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a><span style="font-family: Arial;"><span style="font-size: large;">
will therefore be important to process.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Furthermore, in marked contrast to present procedures, the members-only
union will have the right to remain on the premises regardless of the time
required to complete an NLRB enforcement action against a recalcitrant
employer, and the employer’s duty to bargain with that union will
continue.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Needless to say, however, these
projections assume a sufficiently funded NLRB, which hopefully will be
available.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Yet, because of the continued
presence of unions in the workplace and the possibility that ultimately there should
be greater employer acceptance of the national policy favoring collective
bargaining<span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial;">―</span>however
reluctant that acceptance may be<span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial;">―</span>the Board’s enforcement role, and hence its need for more
funding, should eventually decrease. <o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span><span style="font-family: Arial;"><span style="font-size: large;">Now for a glimpse into the future: what I believe will
generally occur after the proposed rule becomes widely recognized.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>W<span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Arial;">here
workers with shared interests join together and organize into an identifiable
group that satisfies the broad definition of a “labor organization” under the <span style="text-transform: uppercase;">A</span>ct,<a href="file:///C:/Users/Morris/Documents/Blogs/Members-only%20response.docx" name="_ftnref49" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn49;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="color: blue;">[49]</span></span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a> they
will ipso facto become a stronger presence in their meetings with management and
in their efforts to resolve common problems and grievances<span style="color: black;">―much stronger </span>than would be possible if each worker
was acting alone.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In all but the smallest
workplaces, or where a close-knit or family-type relationship exists between the
employer and employees, communication between management and workers concerning
conditions of employment is likely to be more productive where employees have
the security of union membership and a union that speaks collectively on their
behalf.<a href="file:///C:/Users/Morris/Documents/Blogs/Members-only%20response.docx" name="_ftnref50" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn50;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="color: blue;">[50]</span></span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Accordingly, a members-only union, even if small
or informal and with or without outside-union affiliation, will be suitable for
this purpose because union employees<span style="color: black;">―</span>unlike
nonunion <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">at-will</i> employees<span style="color: black;">―</span>have all the legal protections provided by Section
7.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And most important of all, the
employer’s duty to bargain with a members-only union<span style="color: black;">―</span>regardless
of its size<span style="color: black;">―will </span>provide the employee members
with a voice that must be heard and a response that must be forthcoming.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Arial;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: large;">That
response must be forthcoming because Sections 8(a)(1) and 8(a)(5) of the Act
require an employer to respond to a union that represents its member-employees
rather than respond to those employees individually, and to negotiate with that
union, their agent, before any changes in their conditions of employment can be
effected.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Fundamental to this basic concept
of collective bargaining is that management has a duty to meet with the union
“at reasonable times and confer in good faith with respect to wages, hours, and
other terms and conditions of employment,”</span><a href="file:///C:/Users/Morris/Documents/Blogs/Members-only%20response.docx" name="_ftnref51" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn51;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="color: blue; font-size: large;">[51]</span></span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: large;">
which means that there can be no unilateral changes in the working conditions
of these union members</span><a href="file:///C:/Users/Morris/Documents/Blogs/Members-only%20response.docx" name="_ftnref52" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn52;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="color: blue; font-size: large;">[52]</span></span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: large;">
and no direct dealing with them individually regarding those conditions.</span><a href="file:///C:/Users/Morris/Documents/Blogs/Members-only%20response.docx" name="_ftnref53" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn53;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="color: blue; font-size: large;">[53]</span></span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a><o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Arial;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: large;">Although in
its early stages members-only bargaining may appear to be no more than informal
meet-and-confer sessions, even under that simple format workplace problems and
grievances are more likely to be settled fairly than under the
employment-at-will system that typical prevails in non-union workplaces.<span class="MsoFootnoteReference"> <a href="file:///C:/Users/Morris/Documents/Blogs/Members-only%20response.docx" name="_ftnref54" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn54;" title=""><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="color: blue;">[54]</span></span></span><!--[endif]--></span></a></span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And because employers will be legally
required to recognize and bargain with these members-only unions, aggrieved
employees will ordinarily have no need to resort to confrontational conduct in
order to focus management’s attention on matters requiring correction,</span><a href="file:///C:/Users/Morris/Documents/Blogs/Members-only%20response.docx" name="_ftnref55" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn55;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="color: blue; font-size: large;">[55]</span></span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: large;">
such as occurred in the recently publicized walk-outs at various Wal-Mart and
fast food locations.</span><a href="file:///C:/Users/Morris/Documents/Blogs/Members-only%20response.docx" name="_ftnref56" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn56;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="color: blue; font-size: large;">[56]</span></span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a><span style="font-family: Arial;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Furthermore, when a members-only union does choose
to engage in such concerted activity as strikes, picketing, or consumer
leafleting, most such conduct will be protected under Section 7, and this activity
might also be an integral part of a statutory bargaining process that is
designed to produce bilateral agreements because the management counterpart<span style="color: black;">―</span>unlike nonunion management in the recent Wal-Mart
and fast food walkouts<span style="color: black;">―</span>will be required by law
to engage in good-faith bargaining. <o:p></o:p></span></span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span><span style="font-family: Arial;"><span style="font-size: large;">When employees begin organizing and bargaining
through these newly-found procedures and employers begin complying with the
law’s bargaining requirements, what differences in employment benefits might be
expected?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>For the employees who choose
to join a members-only union, the early availability of collective bargaining should
lead to noticeable improvements in their working conditions—however
slight.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And when that union grows in
membership and authority, employment benefits should likewise increase,<span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial;"> </span>for despite the expected
obstacles, this is what collective bargaining usually produces.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This budding union might begin its effort at
formal bargaining by first seeking to negotiate about problems or grievances
that affect both union and nonunion employees.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Although any negotiated benefits will be legally binding only for union
employees, management might unilaterally decide to extend some or all of those benefits
to other employees.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And even though this
pre-majority union will have no authority to represent nonunion employees, management’s
extension of those benefits to non-member employees should reflect favorably on
the union in its effort to recruit new members.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>This would be an example of the bargaining process complimenting the
organizing process.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It is likely,
however, that the minority union will not request formal bargaining for a
comprehensive collective agreement until its membership has reached a size
large enough to command serious attention. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>How large that should be and the timing of that
request will depend on numerous factors, such as economic conditions, the
nature and importance of the union members’ jobs, the nature and extent of the
employer’s business, and of course, sound judgment and good fortune.<o:p></o:p></span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span><br />
<div class="correspondencepar" style="margin: 0in 0in 1em;">
<span style="font-family: Arial;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Arial;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span>Although working life for
minority-union employees is thus expected to improve, what effect will
members-only bargaining have on the employer’s business?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Although some adjustments in human-resource
procedures will undoubtedly be necessary, they ought not to impose an undue
burden considering their human benefits, such as improved employee morale<span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial;">―</span>a<span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial;"> conclusion many e</span>mployers will undoubtedly dispute.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Nevertheless, accommodation to this new
bargaining requirement ought to be no more difficult than what typically transpires
when a company first begins to bargain in good faith with a traditional majority-based
union.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Time is a great teacher.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Although it is true that almost every
nonunion employer will prefer to retain unimpeded hierarchic control of a
workforce answerable to no one but management, that is not what the Act requires.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>However, once employers become accustomed to
members-only bargaining they will probably and eventually adjust to the
process, just as union companies in the past have usually adjusted in their
dealings with traditional majority unions.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Except for its more limited contractual coverage, pre-majority
bargaining for union members only will in most respects not be substantially
different from majority-union bargaining.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>But because newly granted employment benefits resulting from
members-only negotiations will contractually apply only to union employees,
management alone must decide whether all, part, or none of those benefits will
be made available to similarly situated nonunion employees.</span></span><a href="file:///C:/Users/Morris/Documents/Blogs/Members-only%20response.docx" name="_ftnref57" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn57;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="color: blue; font-size: large;">[57]</span></span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a><span style="font-family: Arial;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And, needless to say, the minority union must
be especially careful not to request or demand that any union-negotiated
non-representational benefits be withheld from nonunion employees.</span></span><a href="file:///C:/Users/Morris/Documents/Blogs/Members-only%20response.docx" name="_ftnref58" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn58;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="color: blue; font-size: large;">[58]</span></span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a><span style="font-family: Arial;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Although the employer will be free to grant
the same union-negotiated economic benefits to nonunion employees, representational
benefits, such as grievance and arbitration procedures, will be available to
union members only.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: large;">Although most employers will naturally prefer not to
engage in any kind of collective bargaining, there will be some negative
incentives that might encourage<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>good-faith bargaining on a members-only basis, however grudging.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>For instance, conduct that might constitute
an unfair labor practice, such as unilateral changes in working conditions
affecting union members,</span><a href="file:///C:/Users/Morris/Documents/Blogs/Members-only%20response.docx" name="_ftnref59" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn59;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="color: blue; font-size: large;">[59]</span></span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: large;">
discriminatory grants of special benefits to nonunion employees to discourage
their joining the union,</span><a href="file:///C:/Users/Morris/Documents/Blogs/Members-only%20response.docx" name="_ftnref60" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn60;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="color: blue; font-size: large;">[60]</span></span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: large;">
or actions that reveal an intent not to reach an agreement,</span><a href="file:///C:/Users/Morris/Documents/Blogs/Members-only%20response.docx" name="_ftnref61" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn61;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="color: blue; font-size: large;">[61]</span></span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: large;">
will invite the filing of unfair-labor-practice charges and their
consequences.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And, as previously noted,
a members-only union that actively represents employees will have the right to
continue its presence in the workplace regardless of the outcome of the
unfair-labor-practice charges.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Furthermore,
a strike by a minority-union to protest an employer’s refusal to bargain will
almost certainly be an unfair-labor-practice strike entitling the striking
employees to reinstatement at the conclusion of the strike.</span><a href="file:///C:/Users/Morris/Documents/Blogs/Members-only%20response.docx" name="_ftnref62" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn62;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="color: blue; font-size: large;">[62]</span></span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a><span style="font-family: Arial;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Minority unions might therefore prove more
successful in achieving first contracts than their present-day majority-union
counterparts.</span></span><a href="file:///C:/Users/Morris/Documents/Blogs/Members-only%20response.docx" name="_ftnref63" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn63;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="color: blue; font-size: large;">[63]</span></span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a><span style="font-family: Arial;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span><br />
<div class="correspondencepar" style="margin: 0in 0in 1em;">
<span style="font-family: Arial;"><span style="font-size: large;">And w<span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Arial;">hen a
members-only union </span>finally <span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Arial;">achieves
majority status—which will probably occur in most cases—there should ordinarily
be no need for an election, for the objective procedure of counting the number
of employee-members to determine if a unit-majority has been reached can be
easily determined and verified from union records.<a href="file:///C:/Users/Morris/Documents/Blogs/Members-only%20response.docx" name="_ftnref64" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn64;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="color: blue;">[64]</span></span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It is therefore conceivable that e</span>lections
will ultimately be conducted only for the limited purpose Congress intended,
i.e., <span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Arial;">to resolve questions concerning
representation when a union’s claim of majority status in an appropriate bargaining
unit is legitimately in doubt.<a href="file:///C:/Users/Morris/Documents/Blogs/Members-only%20response.docx" name="_ftnref65" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn65;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="color: blue;">[65]</span></span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>However, if and when an NLRB election is held
with a union that has already engaged in successful members-only bargaining,
the result should be a foregone conclusion. </span><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: large;">After organizing and bargaining by members-only
unions becomes conclusively validated<span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial;">―however long</span> that might take<span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial;">―</span>members of those unions will be conscious of being an
integral part of a democratic organization that really works, and the often
heard employee question of “what can the union do for me?” may thus be changed
to “what can we do for ourselves, for we are the union?”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>That concept should be especially evident
during a minority union’s organizational stage, even when its ultimate success
depends on the active participation of outside union organizers.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This new, yet old-fashioned, <span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial;">type of </span>union<span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial;">―</span>which organizes while
simultaneously bargaining<span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial;">―will
hopefully</span> provide union representation for millions of American workers
who want and need union representation but for whom it has previously been rarely
obtainable.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This concept offers a <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">private-enterprise</i> means of helping America
build a healthy middle-class, with economic revival<span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial;">―</span>using President Obama’s phrase</span><a href="file:///C:/Users/Morris/Documents/Blogs/Members-only%20response.docx" name="_ftnref66" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn66;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="color: blue; font-size: large;">[66]</span></span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a><span style="font-family: Arial;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial;">―</span>coming from the “middle
out” rather than from the top down.<o:p></o:p></span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span><br />
<div class="correspondencepar" style="margin: 0in 0in 1em;">
<span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Arial;"><span style="font-family: Arial;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></span></span></div>
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span><br />
<div style="mso-element: footnote-list;">
<!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><br clear="all" /><span style="font-size: large;">
<hr align="left" size="1" width="33%" />
<!--[endif]-->
</span><div id="ftn1" style="mso-element: footnote;">
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span><div class="MsoFootnoteText" style="margin: 0in 0in 12pt;">
<a href="file:///C:/Users/Morris/Documents/Blogs/Members-only%20response.docx" name="_ftn1" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn1;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="color: blue; font-size: large;">[1]</span></span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: large;">
Presented on July 24, 2013.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Available at
</span><a href="http://op.bna.com/dlrcases.nsf/r?Open=kpin-99xtqs" target="_blank"><span class="document-link1"><span style="color: #336699; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;"><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: large;">http://op.bna.com/dlrcases.nsf/r?Open=kpin-99xtqs</span></span></span></a><span style="font-family: Arial;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Arial;">.</span><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span></div>
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span><div id="ftn2" style="mso-element: footnote;">
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span><div class="MsoFootnoteText" style="margin: 0in 0in 12pt;">
<a href="file:///C:/Users/Morris/Documents/Blogs/Members-only%20response.docx" name="_ftn2" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn2;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="color: blue; font-size: large;">[2]</span></span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a><span style="font-family: Arial;"><span style="font-size: large;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Id</i>., at p. 6.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Arial;">Emphasis
added.</span><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span></div>
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span><div id="ftn3" style="mso-element: footnote;">
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span><div class="MsoFootnoteText" style="margin: 0in 0in 12pt;">
<a href="file:///C:/Users/Morris/Documents/Blogs/Members-only%20response.docx" name="_ftn3" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn3;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="color: blue; font-size: large;">[3]</span></span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a><span style="font-family: Arial;"><span style="font-size: large;">
Michell Amber, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">AFL-CIO to Seek Input From
Outside Labor to Find Ways to Meet Needs of Workers</i>, 39 <span style="font-variant: small-caps;">Daily Lab. Rep. (BNA</span>)<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>B-1.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span></div>
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span><div id="ftn4" style="mso-element: footnote;">
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span><div class="MsoFootnoteText" style="margin: 0in 0in 12pt;">
<a href="file:///C:/Users/Morris/Documents/Blogs/Members-only%20response.docx" name="_ftn4" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn4;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="color: blue; font-size: large;">[4]</span></span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a><span style="font-family: Arial;"><span style="font-size: large;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Supra</i> note 1 at<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>p. 5.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span></div>
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span><div id="ftn5" style="mso-element: footnote;">
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span><div class="MsoFootnoteText" style="margin: 0in 0in 12pt;">
<a href="file:///C:/Users/Morris/Documents/Blogs/Members-only%20response.docx" name="_ftn5" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn5;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="color: blue; font-size: large;">[5]</span></span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a><span style="font-family: Arial;"><span style="font-size: large;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">See infra</i> at notes 11-15.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span></div>
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span><div id="ftn6" style="mso-element: footnote;">
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span><div class="MsoFootnoteText" style="margin: 0in 0in 12pt;">
<a href="file:///C:/Users/Morris/Documents/Blogs/Members-only%20response.docx" name="_ftn6" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn6;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="color: blue; font-size: large;">[6]</span></span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a><span style="font-family: Arial;"><span style="font-size: large;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">See</i> <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">e.g., </i>Steven Greenhouse<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">, Fighting
Back Against Wretched Wages, </i><span style="font-variant: small-caps; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial;">N.Y. Times</span><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Arial;"> (7/28/2013); </span>Mark Bittman, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Fast
Food, Low Pay</i>, <span style="font-variant: small-caps;">N.Y. Times</span>
(7/26/2013);<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"> </i>Robert Iafolla, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Workers at Wal-Mart Supplier Strike Over
Alleged Retaliation for Safety Complaints</i>, 142 <span style="font-variant: small-caps;">Daily Lab. Rep. (BNA</span>)<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>A-9 (7/24/2013); <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></i>Rhonda Smith, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Wal-Mart Employees Allege Retaliation for Protests at Recent
Shareholder’ Meeting</i>, 124 <span style="font-variant: small-caps;">Daily Lab.
Rep. (BNA</span>)<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>A-8 (6/27/2013); Susan
R. Hobbs, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">‘Day of Action’ at 150 Wal-Mart
Stores Asks Retailer to Correct Scheduling Concerns,</i> 70<span style="font-variant: small-caps;"> Daily Lab. Rep. (BNA</span>)<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>A-10 (4/24/2013); Stephen Lee, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">California Wal-Mart Warehouse Workers Go on
Strike to Protest Unsafe Conditions</i>, 177<span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Arial;"> <span style="font-variant: small-caps;">Daily Lab. Rep</span>. (BNA) A-9
(9/12/2012); Michael Bologna, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Nonunion
Wal-Mart Workers Launch Protest in Four States Over Pay, Working Conditions</i>,
195 <span style="font-variant: small-caps;">Daily Lab. Rep</span>. (BNA) A-11
(10/09/2012); Michael Bologna, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Nonunion
Wal-Mart Workers Launch Protest in Four States Over Pay, Working Conditions</i>,
195 <span style="font-variant: small-caps;">Daily Lab. Rep</span>. (BNA) A-11
(10/09/2012); Alicia Biggs, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">California
Wal-Mart Warehouse Workers Strike for Second Time in Three Months, </i>220<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"> </i><span style="font-variant: small-caps;">Daily
Lab. Rep</span>. (BNA) A-9 (11/14/2012); Steven Greenhouse, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Wal-Mart Dismisses Labor Protests at its
Stores, </i><span style="font-variant: small-caps;">N.Y. Times</span>
(11/24/2012).</span><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span></div>
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span><div id="ftn7" style="mso-element: footnote;">
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span><div class="MsoFootnoteText" style="margin: 0in 0in 12pt;">
<a href="file:///C:/Users/Morris/Documents/Blogs/Members-only%20response.docx" name="_ftn7" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn7;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="color: blue; font-size: large;">[7]</span></span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a><span style="font-family: Arial;"><span style="font-size: large;">
29 U.S.C. <span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Arial;">§§</span> 151-69.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span></div>
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span><div id="ftn8" style="mso-element: footnote;">
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span><div class="MsoFootnoteText" style="margin: 0in 0in 12pt;">
<a href="file:///C:/Users/Morris/Documents/Blogs/Members-only%20response.docx" name="_ftn8" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn8;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="color: blue; font-size: large;">[8]</span></span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a><span style="font-family: Arial;"><span style="font-size: large;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">See</i> <span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Arial;">James J. Brudney, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Isolated and
Politicized, the NLRB’s Uncertain Future,</i> 26 <span style="font-variant: small-caps;">Comp. Lab. L. & Pol’y J</span>. 221, 225, & n. 17 (2005) );
Anne Marie Lofaso, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">The Persistence of
Union Repression in an Era of Recognition</i>, 62 Me. L. Rev. 199 (2010); Kate
Bronfenbrenner, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">No Holds Barred: The
Intensification of Employer Opposition to Organizing</i>, <span style="font-variant: small-caps;">Economic Policy Institute and American Rights
at Work Education Fund </span>(2009); </span>Charles J. Morris, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">A Tale of Two Statutes: Discrimination for
Union Activity Under the NLRA and RLA,</i> 2 <span style="font-variant: small-caps;">Emp.
Rts. & Emp. Pol’y J</span>. 327, 329-30 (1998) (Between 1992 and 1997 one
of<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>every eighteen employees involved in
union election campaigns was subject to discharge or other employment
discrimination to discourage union representation.)<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span></div>
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span><div id="ftn9" style="mso-element: footnote;">
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span><div class="MsoFootnoteText" style="margin: 0in 0in 12pt;">
<a href="file:///C:/Users/Morris/Documents/Blogs/Members-only%20response.docx" name="_ftn9" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn9;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="color: blue; font-size: large;">[9]</span></span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a><span style="font-family: Arial;"><span style="font-size: large;">
This piece is being distributed immediately after the Senate’s confirmation of <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Chairman Mark Gaston Pearce and new members
Nancy Schiffer, Kent Hirozawa, Philip Miscimarra, and Harry Johnson on July 30,
2013.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span></div>
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span><div id="ftn10" style="mso-element: footnote;">
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span><div class="MsoFootnoteText" style="margin: 0in 0in 12pt;">
<a href="file:///C:/Users/Morris/Documents/Blogs/Members-only%20response.docx" name="_ftn10" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn10;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="color: blue; font-size: large;">[10]</span></span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a><span style="font-family: Arial;"><span style="font-size: large;">
Bureau of Labor Statistics, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Union Members</i><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial;">―</span>2012,</i> Release Jan. 23, 2013.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span></div>
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span><div id="ftn11" style="mso-element: footnote;">
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span><div class="MsoFootnoteText" style="margin: 0in 0in 12pt;">
<a href="file:///C:/Users/Morris/Documents/Blogs/Members-only%20response.docx" name="_ftn11" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn11;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="color: blue; font-size: large;">[11]</span></span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a><span style="font-family: Arial;"><span style="font-size: large;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Union Recognition as Shown in Contracts</i>,
1A L.R.R.M. (BNA) 781 (1938).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span></div>
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span><div id="ftn12" style="mso-element: footnote;">
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span><div class="MsoFootnoteText" style="margin: 0in 0in 12pt;">
<a href="file:///C:/Users/Morris/Documents/Blogs/Members-only%20response.docx" name="_ftn12" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn12;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="color: blue; font-size: large;">[12]</span></span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a><span style="font-family: Arial;"><span style="font-size: large;">
S<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">ee </i><span style="font-variant: small-caps;">The
Twentieth Century Fund</span>, <span style="font-variant: small-caps;">How
Collective Bargaining Works:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>A Survey of
Experience in Leading American Industries</span> 24 (Harry A. Millis, Research
Director, 1942).<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span></div>
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span><div id="ftn13" style="mso-element: footnote;">
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<a href="file:///C:/Users/Morris/Documents/Blogs/Members-only%20response.docx" name="_ftn13" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn13;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="color: blue; font-size: large;">[13]</span></span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a><span style="font-family: Arial;"><span style="font-size: large;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Supra</i> note 11.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>See also <span style="font-variant: small-caps; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial;">Charles J. Morris</span><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Arial;">, <span style="font-variant: small-caps;">The Blue Eagle at Work:
Reclaiming Democratic Rights in the American Workplace (2005) (</span>hereinafter
<span style="font-variant: small-caps;">Blue Eagle</span>)<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>at 82.<o:p></o:p></span></span></span></div>
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<o:p><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: large;"> </span></o:p></div>
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span></div>
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span><div id="ftn14" style="mso-element: footnote;">
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span><div class="MsoFootnoteText" style="margin: 0in 0in 12pt;">
<a href="file:///C:/Users/Morris/Documents/Blogs/Members-only%20response.docx" name="_ftn14" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn14;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="color: blue; font-size: large;">[14]</span></span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a><span style="font-family: Arial;"><span style="font-size: large;">
The automobile industry was a stellar example of that process.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Upon the conclusion of the members-only UAW
contracts that had been executed in the late thirties, the NLRB in 1940
conducted elections that resulted in certification of the UAW as exclusive bargaining
representative for 130,000 employees at General Motors and 50,000 employees at
Chrysler.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>5 NLRB <span style="font-variant: small-caps;">Ann. Rep.</span> 18-19, 141, 151 (1941).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">See
also</i> <span style="font-variant: small-caps;">Sidney Fine</span>, <span style="font-variant: small-caps;">Sit-Down: The General Motors Strike of
1936-1937</span>, 266-312, 328 (1969).<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span></div>
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span><div id="ftn15" style="mso-element: footnote;">
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span><div class="MsoFootnoteText" style="margin: 0in 0in 12pt;">
<a href="file:///C:/Users/Morris/Documents/Blogs/Members-only%20response.docx" name="_ftn15" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn15;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="color: blue; font-size: large;">[15]</span></span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a><span style="font-family: Arial;"><span style="font-size: large;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">See</i> Consolidated Edison Co. v. NLRB,
305 U.S. 197, 236-237 (1938) (“The Act contemplates the making of contracts
with labor organizations.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>That is the
manifest objective in providing for collective bargaining....[I]n the absence
of...an exclusive agency the employees represented by the Brotherhood even if
they were a minority, clearly had the right to make their own choice.”);
International Ladies Garment Workers v. NLRB (Bernhard-Altmann Tex. Corp.), 366
U.S. 731, 736, 742-43 (1961); Retail Clerks v. Lion Dry Goods, Inc., 369 U.S.
17, 29 (1962); The Solvay Process Co., 5 NLRB 330 (1938); The Hoover Co., 90
NLRB 1614 (1950); Consolidated<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Builders,
Inc., 99 NLRB 972 (1952).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></i><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span></div>
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span><div id="ftn16" style="mso-element: footnote;">
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<a href="file:///C:/Users/Morris/Documents/Blogs/Members-only%20response.docx" name="_ftn16" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn16;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="color: blue; font-size: large;">[16]</span></span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a><span style="font-family: Arial;"><span style="font-size: large;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">See</i> <span style="font-variant: small-caps; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial;">Blue Eagle, </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Arial;">supra</span></i><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Arial;"> note 13 at </span>85-88 & nn. 35-44.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<o:p><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: large;"> </span></o:p></div>
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span></div>
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span><div id="ftn17" style="mso-element: footnote;">
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span><div class="MsoFootnoteText" style="margin: 0in 0in 12pt;">
<a href="file:///C:/Users/Morris/Documents/Blogs/Members-only%20response.docx" name="_ftn17" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn17;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="color: blue; font-size: large;">[17]</span></span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a><span style="font-family: Arial;"><span style="font-size: large;">
United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied
Industrial and Service Workers International Union, AFL-CI<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">O</b><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span></div>
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span><div id="ftn18" style="mso-element: footnote;">
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span><div class="MsoFootnoteText" style="margin: 0in 0in 12pt;">
<a href="file:///C:/Users/Morris/Documents/Blogs/Members-only%20response.docx" name="_ftn18" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn18;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="color: blue; font-size: large;">[18]</span></span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a><span style="font-family: Arial;"><span style="font-size: large;">
<span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Arial;">Dick’s Sporting Goods, Inc., NLRB Case
No. 6-CA-24821; charge filed Aug. 12, 2005.</span><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span></div>
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span><div id="ftn19" style="mso-element: footnote;">
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span><div class="MsoFootnoteText" style="margin: 0in 0in 12pt;">
<a href="file:///C:/Users/Morris/Documents/Blogs/Members-only%20response.docx" name="_ftn19" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn19;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="color: blue; font-size: large;">[19]</span></span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a><span style="font-family: Arial;"><span style="font-size: large;">
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, CLC. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span></div>
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span><div id="ftn20" style="mso-element: footnote;">
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span><div class="MsoFootnoteText" style="margin: 0in 0in 12pt;">
<a href="file:///C:/Users/Morris/Documents/Blogs/Members-only%20response.docx" name="_ftn20" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn20;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="color: blue; font-size: large;">[20]</span></span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a><span style="font-family: Arial;"><span style="font-size: large;">
Communications Workers of America, AFL-CIO, CLC.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span></div>
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span><div id="ftn21" style="mso-element: footnote;">
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span><div class="MsoFootnoteText" style="margin: 0in 0in 12pt;">
<a href="file:///C:/Users/Morris/Documents/Blogs/Members-only%20response.docx" name="_ftn21" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn21;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="color: blue; font-size: large;">[21]</span></span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a><span style="font-family: Arial;"><span style="font-size: large;">
International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement
Workers of America, AFL-CIO-CLC.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span></div>
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span><div id="ftn22" style="mso-element: footnote;">
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span><div class="MsoFootnoteText" style="margin: 0in 0in 12pt;">
<a href="file:///C:/Users/Morris/Documents/Blogs/Members-only%20response.docx" name="_ftn22" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn22;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="color: blue; font-size: large;">[22]</span></span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a><span style="font-family: Arial;"><span style="font-size: large;">
International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO, CLC.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span></div>
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span><div id="ftn23" style="mso-element: footnote;">
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span><div class="MsoFootnoteText" style="margin: 0in 0in 12pt;">
<a href="file:///C:/Users/Morris/Documents/Blogs/Members-only%20response.docx" name="_ftn23" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn23;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="color: blue; font-size: large;">[23]</span></span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a><span style="font-family: Arial;"><span style="font-size: large;">
United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America (UE).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span></div>
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span><div id="ftn24" style="mso-element: footnote;">
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span><div class="MsoFootnoteText" style="margin: 0in 0in 12pt;">
<a href="file:///C:/Users/Morris/Documents/Blogs/Members-only%20response.docx" name="_ftn24" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn24;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="color: blue; font-size: large;">[24]</span></span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a><span style="font-family: Arial;"><span style="font-size: large;">
California Nurses Association, AFL-CIO.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span></div>
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span><div id="ftn25" style="mso-element: footnote;">
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span><div class="MsoFootnoteText" style="margin: 0in 0in 12pt;">
<a href="file:///C:/Users/Morris/Documents/Blogs/Members-only%20response.docx" name="_ftn25" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn25;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="color: blue; font-size: large;">[25]</span></span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a><span style="font-family: Arial;"><span style="font-size: large;">
Filed Aug.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>14, 2007.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span></div>
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span><div id="ftn26" style="mso-element: footnote;">
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span><div class="MsoFootnoteText" style="margin: 0in 0in 12pt;">
<a href="file:///C:/Users/Morris/Documents/Blogs/Members-only%20response.docx" name="_ftn26" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn26;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="color: blue; font-size: large;">[26]</span></span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a><span style="font-family: Arial;"><span style="font-size: large;">
Filed Jan. 4, 2008.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span></div>
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span><div id="ftn27" style="mso-element: footnote;">
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span><div class="MsoFootnoteText" style="margin: 0in 0in 12pt;">
<a href="file:///C:/Users/Morris/Documents/Blogs/Members-only%20response.docx" name="_ftn27" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn27;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="color: blue; font-size: large;">[27]</span></span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a><span style="font-family: Arial;"><span style="font-size: large;">
Service Employees International Union. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span></div>
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span><div id="ftn28" style="mso-element: footnote;">
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span><div class="MsoFootnoteText" style="margin: 0in 0in 12pt;">
<a href="file:///C:/Users/Morris/Documents/Blogs/Members-only%20response.docx" name="_ftn28" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn28;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="color: blue; font-size: large;">[28]</span></span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a><span style="font-family: Arial;"><span style="font-size: large;">
International Brotherhood of Teamsters.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span></div>
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span><div id="ftn29" style="mso-element: footnote;">
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span><div class="MsoFootnoteText" style="margin: 0in 0in 12pt;">
<a href="file:///C:/Users/Morris/Documents/Blogs/Members-only%20response.docx" name="_ftn29" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn29;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="color: blue; font-size: large;">[29]</span></span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a><span style="font-family: Arial;"><span style="font-size: large;">
United Food and Commercial Workers International Union.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span></div>
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span><div id="ftn30" style="mso-element: footnote;">
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span><div class="MsoFootnoteText" style="margin: 0in 0in 12pt;">
<a href="file:///C:/Users/Morris/Documents/Blogs/Members-only%20response.docx" name="_ftn30" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn30;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="color: blue; font-size: large;">[30]</span></span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a><span style="font-family: Arial;"><span style="font-size: large;">
Consisting of mergers of the following unions over a number of years: Hotel
Employees & Restaurant Employees International Union; International Ladies’
Garment Workers’ Union; Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America; Textile
Workers Union of America. <o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span></div>
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span><div id="ftn31" style="mso-element: footnote;">
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span><div class="MsoFootnoteText" style="margin: 0in 0in 12pt;">
<a href="file:///C:/Users/Morris/Documents/Blogs/Members-only%20response.docx" name="_ftn31" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn31;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="color: blue; font-size: large;">[31]</span></span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a><span style="font-family: Arial;"><span style="font-size: large;">
United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span></div>
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span><div id="ftn32" style="mso-element: footnote;">
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span><div class="MsoFootnoteText" style="margin: 0in 0in 12pt;">
<a href="file:///C:/Users/Morris/Documents/Blogs/Members-only%20response.docx" name="_ftn32" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn32;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="color: blue; font-size: large;">[32]</span></span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a><span style="font-family: Arial;"><span style="font-size: large;">
Laborers’ International Union of North America.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span></div>
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span><div id="ftn33" style="mso-element: footnote;">
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span><div class="MsoFootnoteText" style="margin: 0in 0in 12pt;">
<a href="file:///C:/Users/Morris/Documents/Blogs/Members-only%20response.docx" name="_ftn33" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn33;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="color: blue; font-size: large;">[33]</span></span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a><span style="font-family: Arial;"><span style="font-size: large;">
United Farm Workers.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span></div>
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span><div id="ftn34" style="mso-element: footnote;">
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span><div class="MsoFootnoteText" style="margin: 0in 0in 12pt;">
<a href="file:///C:/Users/Morris/Documents/Blogs/Members-only%20response.docx" name="_ftn34" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn34;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="color: blue; font-size: large;">[34]</span></span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a><span style="font-family: Arial;"><span style="font-size: large;">
NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp., 301 U.S. 1, 33 (1937).<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span></div>
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span><div id="ftn35" style="mso-element: footnote;">
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span><div class="MsoFootnoteText" style="margin: 0in 0in 12pt;">
<a href="file:///C:/Users/Morris/Documents/Blogs/Members-only%20response.docx" name="_ftn35" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn35;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="color: blue; font-size: large;">[35]</span></span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a><span style="font-family: Arial;"><span style="font-size: large;">
It provides that it is an unfair labor practice for an employer “to refuse to
bargain collectively with the representative of his employees, subject to the
provisions of section 9(a),” i.e., the exclusivity and other requirements of
that provision if and when a union represents an employee majority.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span></div>
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span><div id="ftn36" style="mso-element: footnote;">
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span><div class="MsoFootnoteText" style="margin: 0in 0in 12pt;">
<a href="file:///C:/Users/Morris/Documents/Blogs/Members-only%20response.docx" name="_ftn36" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn36;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="color: blue; font-size: large;">[36]</span></span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a><span style="font-family: Arial;"><span style="font-size: large;">
The language specifically rejected was that the duty to bargain applied only with
unions <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">“chosen as provided in Section
9(a).”</i><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">See</i> Kenneth M. Casebeer, <span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Arial;">Kenneth
M. Casebeer, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Drafting Wagner’s Act: Leon
Keyserling and the Precommittee</i> <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Drafts
of the</i> <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Labor Disputes Act and the
National Labor Relations Act</i> , <span style="font-variant: small-caps;">11
Indus. Rel. L. J</span>. 73, 131 (1989).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>For detailed analysis of the language and legislative history of §8(a)(5)
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">see </i><span style="font-variant: small-caps;">Blue
Eagle</span>, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">supra</i> note 13 at
103-105.</span><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span></div>
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span><div id="ftn37" style="mso-element: footnote;">
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span><div class="MsoFootnoteText" style="margin: 0in 0in 12pt;">
<a href="file:///C:/Users/Morris/Documents/Blogs/Members-only%20response.docx" name="_ftn37" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn37;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="color: blue; font-size: large;">[37]</span></span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a><span style="font-family: Arial;"><span style="font-size: large;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">See</i> note 15 <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">supra</i>.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span></div>
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span><div id="ftn38" style="mso-element: footnote;">
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span><div class="MsoFootnoteText" style="margin: 0in 0in 12pt;">
<a href="file:///C:/Users/Morris/Documents/Blogs/Members-only%20response.docx" name="_ftn38" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn38;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="color: blue; font-size: large;">[38]</span></span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a><span style="font-family: Arial;"><span style="font-size: large;">
That was the effect of the strengthening union movement during the middle of
the last century.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">See</i>, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">e.g.,</i> <span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Arial;">Melvyn Dubofsky, <span style="font-variant: small-caps;">The State of Labor in Modern America</span> ,125 (1994) (“During
the 1950s and 1960s [c]ollective bargaining between unions and management
created an affluent society in which rising real wages enabled workers and
their families to consume with abandon.”); <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></span></span></div>
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span></div>
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span><div id="ftn39" style="mso-element: footnote;">
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span><div class="FootnoteText1" style="margin: 0in 0in 12pt;">
<a href="file:///C:/Users/Morris/Documents/Blogs/Members-only%20response.docx" name="_ftn39" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn39;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="color: blue; font-size: large;">[39]</span></span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: large;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">See</i>, e.g., Craig Woodman, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">What is the Employment at Will Doctrine?</i><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>(The employment at will doctrine is a
cornerstone of employer and employee relationships, particularly when related
to the discharge of an employee. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-bidi-font-style: italic;">Employment</span> at will basically holds
that employment is for no definite period of time, and that either the employer
or the employee may end the relationship at any time for any reason.) </span><span style="color: black;"><br /><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: large;">
</span></span><a href="http://www.ehow.com/info_8239373_employment-doctrine.html#ixzz2a0WIuvBV"><span style="color: #003399; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: large;">http://www.ehow.com/info_8239373_employment-doctrine.html#ixzz2a0WIuvBV</span></span></a><span style="font-family: Arial;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="color: black;"> .</span><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span></div>
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span><div id="ftn40" style="mso-element: footnote;">
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span><div class="FootnoteText1" style="margin: 0in 0in 12pt;">
<a href="file:///C:/Users/Morris/Documents/Blogs/Members-only%20response.docx" name="_ftn40" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn40;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="color: blue; font-size: large;">[40]</span></span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a><span style="font-family: Arial;"><span style="font-size: large;">
Lawrence Mishel, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Unions, Inequality, and Faltering
Middle-Class Wages</i>, <span style="font-variant: small-caps;">Economic Policy
Institute</span>,<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Aug. 29, 2012 (“The
union wage premium—the percentage-higher wage earned by those covered by a
collective bargaining contract—is 13.6 percent overall (17.3 percent for men
and 9.1 percent for women).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Unionized
workers are 28.2 percent more likely to be covered by employer-provided health
insurance and 53.9 percent more likely to have employer-provided pensions.”)<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span></div>
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span><div id="ftn41" style="mso-element: footnote;">
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span><div class="MsoFootnoteText" style="margin: 0in 0in 12pt;">
<a href="file:///C:/Users/Morris/Documents/Blogs/Members-only%20response.docx" name="_ftn41" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn41;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="color: blue; font-size: large;">[41]</span></span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a><span style="font-family: Arial;"><span style="font-size: large;">
<span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Arial;">§</span> 1.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span></div>
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span><div id="ftn42" style="mso-element: footnote;">
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span><div class="MsoFootnoteText" style="margin: 0in 0in 12pt;">
<a href="file:///C:/Users/Morris/Documents/Blogs/Members-only%20response.docx" name="_ftn42" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn42;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="color: blue; font-size: large;">[42]</span></span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a><span style="font-family: Arial;"><span style="font-size: large;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">See</i> dissent of Members Liebman and
Walsh in Harborside Healthcare, Inc., 343 N.L.R.B. 906, 917-18 & n.14
(2004): “At the direction of their employer, supervisors—up to the highest
company official—may urge their subordinates to vote against unionization.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Indeed, employers are free to compel employees
to listen to their antiunion message, in captive audience meetings, one-on-one
encounters, and other settings, while excluding union representatives.” (Citations
omitted.)<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span></div>
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span><div id="ftn43" style="mso-element: footnote;">
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span><div class="MsoFootnoteText" style="margin: 0in 0in 12pt;">
<a href="file:///C:/Users/Morris/Documents/Blogs/Members-only%20response.docx" name="_ftn43" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn43;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="color: blue; font-size: large;">[43]</span></span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a><span style="font-family: Arial;"><span style="font-size: large;">
Which under Linden Lumber Div., Summer & Co. v. NLRB, 419 U.S. 301 (1974),
can be insufficient to establish majority status; thus, absent agreement from
the employer, they are presently useful only to establish a 30% showing of
interest to obtain an election.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>NLRB <span style="font-variant: small-caps;">Statement of Procedure</span>, <span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Arial;">§</span>101.18(a).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span></div>
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span><div id="ftn44" style="mso-element: footnote;">
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span><div class="MsoFootnoteText" style="margin: 0in 0in 12pt;">
<a href="file:///C:/Users/Morris/Documents/Blogs/Members-only%20response.docx" name="_ftn44" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn44;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="color: blue; font-size: large;">[44]</span></span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a><span style="font-family: Arial;"><span style="font-size: large;">
Paul R. Hutchings, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Effect on the Trade
Union</i>, in <span style="font-variant: small-caps;">The Wagner Act: After Ten
Years</span> 73 (Louis G. Silverberg ed. 1945).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span></div>
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span><div id="ftn45" style="mso-element: footnote;">
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span><div class="MsoFootnoteText" style="margin: 0in 0in 12pt;">
<a href="file:///C:/Users/Morris/Documents/Blogs/Members-only%20response.docx" name="_ftn45" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn45;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="color: blue; font-size: large;">[45]</span></span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a><span style="font-family: Arial;"><span style="font-size: large;">
The basic agency relation is a “fiduciary relationship between two parties in
which one (the ‘agent’) is under the control of (is obligated to) the other
(the ‘principal’) .<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The agent is
authorized by the principal to perform certain acts, for and on behalf of the
principal.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The principal is bound by the
acts of the agent, performed in carrying out entrusted duties and within the
scope of agent’s authority.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span></span><a href="http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/agency.html"><span style="color: blue; font-family: Arial; font-size: large;">www.businessdictionary.com/definition/agency.html</span></a><span style="font-family: Arial;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span></div>
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span><div id="ftn46" style="mso-element: footnote;">
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span><div class="MsoFootnoteText" style="margin: 0in 0in 12pt;">
<a href="file:///C:/Users/Morris/Documents/Blogs/Members-only%20response.docx" name="_ftn46" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn46;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="color: blue; font-size: large;">[46]</span></span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a><span style="font-family: Arial;"><span style="font-size: large;">
<span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Arial;">§</span>8(d).<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span></div>
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span><div id="ftn47" style="mso-element: footnote;">
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span><div class="MsoFootnoteText" style="margin: 0in 0in 12pt;">
<a href="file:///C:/Users/Morris/Documents/Blogs/Members-only%20response.docx" name="_ftn47" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn47;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="color: blue; font-size: large;">[47]</span></span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a><span style="font-family: Arial;"><span style="font-size: large;">
<span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Arial;">§</span>10(j).<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span></div>
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span><div id="ftn48" style="mso-element: footnote;">
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span><div class="MsoFootnoteText" style="margin: 0in 0in 12pt;">
<a href="file:///C:/Users/Morris/Documents/Blogs/Members-only%20response.docx" name="_ftn48" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn48;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="color: blue; font-size: large;">[48]</span></span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a><span style="font-family: Arial;"><span style="font-size: large;">
<span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Arial;">§</span>10. <o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span></div>
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span><div id="ftn49" style="mso-element: footnote;">
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span><div class="MsoFootnoteText" style="margin: 0in 0in 12pt;">
<a href="file:///C:/Users/Morris/Documents/Blogs/Members-only%20response.docx" name="_ftn49" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn49;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Arial;"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="color: blue; font-size: large;">[49]</span></span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></span></a><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Arial;"><span style="font-family: Arial;"><span style="font-size: large;"> §2(5): “The term ‘labor organization’ means
any organization of any kind, or any agency or employee representation
committee or plan, in which employees participate and which exists for the
purpose, in whole or in part, of dealing with employers concerning grievances,
labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, or conditions of
work.”<o:p></o:p></span></span></span></div>
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span></div>
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span><div id="ftn50" style="mso-element: footnote;">
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span><div class="MsoFootnoteText" style="margin: 0in 0in 12pt;">
<a href="file:///C:/Users/Morris/Documents/Blogs/Members-only%20response.docx" name="_ftn50" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn50;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="color: blue; font-size: large;">[50]</span></span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a><span style="font-family: Arial;"><span style="font-size: large;">
“If management uses the collective bargaining process to learn about and
improve the operation of the workplace and the production process, unionism can
be a significant plus to enterprise efficiency.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="font-variant: small-caps;">Richard
B. Freeman & James L. Medoff, What Do Unions Do</span>? 12 (1984).<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span></div>
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span><div id="ftn51" style="mso-element: footnote;">
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span><div class="MsoFootnoteText" style="margin: 0in 0in 12pt;">
<a href="file:///C:/Users/Morris/Documents/Blogs/Members-only%20response.docx" name="_ftn51" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn51;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="color: blue; font-size: large;">[51]</span></span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a><span style="font-family: Arial;"><span style="font-size: large;">
<span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Arial;">§</span>8(d).<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span></div>
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span><div id="ftn52" style="mso-element: footnote;">
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span><div class="MsoFootnoteText" style="margin: 0in 0in 12pt;">
<a href="file:///C:/Users/Morris/Documents/Blogs/Members-only%20response.docx" name="_ftn52" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn52;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="color: blue; font-size: large;">[52]</span></span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a><span style="font-family: Arial;"><span style="font-size: large;">
NLRB v. Katz, 369 U.S. 736 (1962) (granting of non-automatic wage
increases).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">See also, e.g.,</i> Garment Workers Local 512 v. NLRB (Febrow, Inc.),
795<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>F.2d 705 (9<sup>th</sup> Cir. 1986r)
(unilateral economic layoffs); Oneita Knitting Mills, 205 NLRB 500 (1973)
(unilateral grant of merit increases).<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span></div>
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span><div id="ftn53" style="mso-element: footnote;">
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span><div class="MsoFootnoteText" style="margin: 0in 0in 12pt;">
<a href="file:///C:/Users/Morris/Documents/Blogs/Members-only%20response.docx" name="_ftn53" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn53;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="color: blue; font-size: large;">[53]</span></span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a><span style="font-family: Arial;"><span style="font-size: large;">
Medo Photo Supply Corp. v. NLRB, 321 U.S. 678 (1944); General Elec. Co., 150
NLRB 192 (1964), <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">enforced</i>, 418 F.2d
736 (2<sup>nd</sup> Cir. 1969), <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">cert.
denied</i>, 397 U.S.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>965 (1970).<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span></div>
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span><div id="ftn54" style="mso-element: footnote;">
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span><div class="FootnoteText1" style="margin: 0in 0in 12pt;">
<a href="file:///C:/Users/Morris/Documents/Blogs/Members-only%20response.docx" name="_ftn54" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn54;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="color: blue; font-size: large;">[54]</span></span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a><span style="font-family: Arial;"><span style="font-size: large;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">See especially</i> the Board’s recent
decision in <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Alan Ritchey</i>,<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"> Inc</i>., 359 NLRB No. 40 (12/14/12), which
reinforces the considerable authority members-only unions will have even before
they engage in formal contract negotiations.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span></div>
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span><div id="ftn55" style="mso-element: footnote;">
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span><div class="MsoFootnoteText" style="margin: 0in 0in 12pt;">
<a href="file:///C:/Users/Morris/Documents/Blogs/Members-only%20response.docx" name="_ftn55" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn55;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Arial;"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="color: blue; font-size: large;">[55]</span></span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></span></a><span style="font-family: Arial;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Arial;"> <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">See</i>
NLRB v. Washington Aluminum, 370 U.S. 9 (1962) (strike by minority group of
employees over work-related grievance is protected concerted activity under §7 </span>of
the Act<span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Arial;">). <o:p></o:p></span></span></span></div>
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span></div>
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span><div id="ftn56" style="mso-element: footnote;">
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span><div class="MsoFootnoteText" style="margin: 0in 0in 12pt;">
<a href="file:///C:/Users/Morris/Documents/Blogs/Members-only%20response.docx" name="_ftn56" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn56;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="color: blue; font-size: large;">[56]</span></span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a><span style="font-family: Arial;"><span style="font-size: large;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Supra</i> at note 6.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span></div>
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span><div id="ftn57" style="mso-element: footnote;">
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span><div class="MsoFootnoteText" style="margin: 0in 0in 12pt;">
<a href="file:///C:/Users/Morris/Documents/Blogs/Members-only%20response.docx" name="_ftn57" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn57;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="color: blue; font-size: large;">[57]</span></span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a><span style="font-family: Arial;"><span style="font-size: large;">
Withholding those benefits will not violate <span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Arial;">§</span>8(a)(3) because the employer’s purpose will not be “to encourage
or discourage membership in any labor organization.” <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Id</i>.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>As the Supreme Court stated
in Radio Officers Union v. NLRB, 347 U.S. 17 (1954),<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span><div class="quote1" style="margin: 0in 0.5in 1em;">
<span style="font-family: Arial;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Arial;">The language of
§8(a)(3) is not ambiguous.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The unfair
labor practice is for an employee to encourage or discourage membership by
means of discrimination.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Thus this
section does not outlaw all encouragement or discouragement of membership in
labor organizations; only such as is accomplished by discrimination is
prohibited.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Nor does this section outlaw
discrimination in employment as such; only such discrimination as encourages or
discourages membership in a labor organization is proscribed.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Id</i>.
at 42-43.</span><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span></div>
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span><div id="ftn58" style="mso-element: footnote;">
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span><div class="MsoFootnoteText" style="margin: 0in 0in 12pt;">
<a href="file:///C:/Users/Morris/Documents/Blogs/Members-only%20response.docx" name="_ftn58" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn58;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="color: blue; font-size: large;">[58]</span></span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a><span style="font-family: Arial;"><span style="font-size: large;">
<span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Arial;">§</span>8(b)(2) prohibits a union from
causing or attempting “to cause an employer to discriminate against an employee
in violation of subsection 8(a)(3),” i.e., to discriminate as to any term or
condition of employment “to encourage or discourage membership in any labor
organization.”<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span></div>
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span><div id="ftn59" style="mso-element: footnote;">
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span><div class="MsoFootnoteText" style="margin: 0in 0in 12pt;">
<a href="file:///C:/Users/Morris/Documents/Blogs/Members-only%20response.docx" name="_ftn59" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn59;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="color: blue; font-size: large;">[59]</span></span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a><span style="font-family: Arial;"><span style="font-size: large;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Supra</i> notes 46-48.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span></div>
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span><div id="ftn60" style="mso-element: footnote;">
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span><div class="MsoFootnoteText" style="margin: 0in 0in 12pt;">
<a href="file:///C:/Users/Morris/Documents/Blogs/Members-only%20response.docx" name="_ftn60" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn60;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="color: blue; font-size: large;">[60]</span></span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a><span style="font-family: Arial;"><span style="font-size: large;">
<span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Arial;">§</span>8(a)(3).<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span></div>
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span><div id="ftn61" style="mso-element: footnote;">
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span><div class="MsoFootnoteText" style="margin: 0in 0in 12pt;">
<a href="file:///C:/Users/Morris/Documents/Blogs/Members-only%20response.docx" name="_ftn61" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn61;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="color: blue; font-size: large;">[61]</span></span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a><span style="font-family: Arial;"><span style="font-size: large;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">See</i> Atlas Mills, 3 NLRB 10 (1937);
National Licorice Co. v. NLRB, 309 U.S. 350 (1940).<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span></div>
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span><div id="ftn62" style="mso-element: footnote;">
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span><div class="MsoFootnoteText" style="margin: 0in 0in 12pt;">
<a href="file:///C:/Users/Morris/Documents/Blogs/Members-only%20response.docx" name="_ftn62" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn62;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="color: blue; font-size: large;">[62]</span></span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a><span style="font-family: Arial;"><span style="font-size: large;">
<span style="font-variant: small-caps; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial;">John E.
Higgins, Jr</span><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Arial;">. ed., <span style="font-variant: small-caps;">The Developing Labor Law: The Board, the
Courts, and the National Labor Relations Act</span> 1686 (6<sup>th</sup> ed.
2012)</span><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">.</b><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span></div>
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span><div id="ftn63" style="mso-element: footnote;">
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span><div class="MsoFootnoteText" style="margin: 0in 0in 12pt;">
<a href="file:///C:/Users/Morris/Documents/Blogs/Members-only%20response.docx" name="_ftn63" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn63;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="color: blue; font-size: large;">[63]</span></span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a><span style="font-family: Arial;"><span style="font-size: large;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">See</i> Ross Eisenbry, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Employers Can Stall First Contract for Years</i>.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="font-variant: small-caps;">Economic
Policy Institute, </span>May 20, 2009.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span></div>
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span><div id="ftn64" style="mso-element: footnote;">
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span><div class="MsoFootnoteText" style="margin: 0in 0in 12pt;">
<a href="file:///C:/Users/Morris/Documents/Blogs/Members-only%20response.docx" name="_ftn64" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn64;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="color: blue; font-size: large;">[64]</span></span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a><span style="font-family: Arial;"><span style="font-size: large;">
Linden Lumber Div., Summer & Co. v. NLRB, 419 U.S. 301 (1974), would not
apply, for unlike the uncertainty that might attach to employees’ intent based
on authorization cards, there can be no uncertainty about their intent when they
have committed to becoming dues-paying union members.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span></div>
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span><div id="ftn65" style="mso-element: footnote;">
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span><div class="MsoFootnoteText" style="margin: 0in 0in 12pt;">
<a href="file:///C:/Users/Morris/Documents/Blogs/Members-only%20response.docx" name="_ftn65" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn65;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="color: blue; font-size: large;">[65]</span></span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a><span style="font-family: Arial;"><span style="font-size: large;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">See</i> <span style="font-variant: small-caps;">Blue
Eagle, </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">supra</i> note<span style="font-variant: small-caps;"> 13</span> at 71.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span></div>
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span><div id="ftn66" style="mso-element: footnote;">
<span style="font-size: large;">
</span><div class="MsoFootnoteText" style="margin: 0in 0in 12pt;">
<a href="file:///C:/Users/Morris/Documents/Blogs/Members-only%20response.docx" name="_ftn66" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn66;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="color: blue; font-size: large;">[66]</span></span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a><span style="font-family: Arial;"><span style="font-size: large;">
Annie Lowrey, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Obama Adopts Catchphrase to
Describe Proposed Recipe for Economic Revival</i><span style="font-variant: small-caps;">, N.Y. Times</span> (7/23/2013)<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
</div>
</div>
Charles J. Morris,http://www.blogger.com/profile/01893087451435558969noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-195362782974793357.post-5961988595125686722013-06-21T11:31:00.001-07:002013-06-24T11:05:42.536-07:00Comment on 4th Circuit Panel’s Decision in U.S. Chamber v. NLRB <br />
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: center;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: Arial;">Comment on 4<sup>th</sup> Circuit Panel’s Decision in <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">U.S.</i> <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Chamber
v. NLRB</i> <o:p></o:p></span></b></div>
<br />
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: center;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: Arial;">by Charles J. Morris<o:p></o:p></span></b></div>
<br />
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: Arial;"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-size: 8pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial;">©</span></b><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-size: 8pt;"> 2013 Charles
J. Morris<o:p></o:p></span></b></span></div>
<br />
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: center;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><o:p><span style="font-family: Arial;"></span></o:p></b> </div>
<span style="font-family: Arial;">This decision, issued June 14, 2013, holds that in
promulgating the NLRA rule requiring employers to post notices advising
employees of their rights under the <span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Arial;">National
Labor Relations Act</span> “the Board <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">exceeds
its authority</i>” pursuant to <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">step one</i>
of the <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">two-step</i> rule of <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Arial;">Chevron
U.S.A., Inc. v. NRDC, Inc</span></i><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Arial;">.,467
U.S. 837 (1984), that</span> governs judicial review of an agency’s
interpretation of its enabling statute<span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Arial;">.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>That holding of an absence of statutory
authorization is not only incorrect for a variety of valid reasons, it is
directly contrary to the Supreme Court’s recent decision in <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">City of</i> <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Arlington v. FCC, </i>Nos. 11-1545 & 11-1547, May 20, 2013, which the
panel’s opinion by Judge Duncan acknowledged but<span style="color: black;">―</span>without
explanation<span style="color: black;">―</span>chose not to follow.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></span><br />
<br />
<div class="correspondencepar" style="margin: 0in 0in 1em;">
<span style="font-family: Arial;"><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Arial;">The decision
in <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">City of Arlington </i>responded to the
question of “</span>whether a court must defer under <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Chevron</i> to an agency’s interpretation of a statutory ambiguity that
concerns the agency’s statutory authority<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">
</i>(that is, its jurisdiction).”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Arial;">Justice Scalia’s majority opinion </span>stressed
that “the distinction between ‘jurisdictional’ and ‘nonjurisdictional’ interpretation
is a mirage” and noted that “there is <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">no
difference</i>, insofar as the validity of agency action is concerned, between
an agency’s exceeding the scope of its authority (its ‘jurisdiction’) and its
exceeding authorized application of authority that it unquestionably has.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The Court concluded that these alleged
distinctions </span></div>
<div class="quote1" style="margin: 0in 0.5in 1em;">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">can all be reframed as questions about the scope of agencies’
regulatory jurisdiction<span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial;">―</span>and
they are all questions to which the <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Chevron</i>
framework applies....Once those labels are sheared away it becomes clear that
the question in every case is, simply, whether the <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">statutory text</i> forecloses the agency’s assertion of authority, or
not. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="font-family: Arial;">Among other things, the Supreme Court was repeating
the <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Chevron</i> requirement that<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<br />
<div class="quote1" style="margin: 0in 0.5in 1em;">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">If the intent of Congress is clear, that is the end of the matter;
for the court, as well as the agency, must give effect to the <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">unambiguously</i> expressed intent of
Congress.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>[But] if the statute is <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">silent or ambiguous</i> with respect to the <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">specific</i> <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">issue</i>, the question for the court is whether the agency’s answer is
based on a permissible construction of the statute.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Chevron</i> further
states that when the agency makes rules to fill the gap, “[s]uch legislative
regulations are given controlling weight unless they are arbitrary, capricious,
or manifestly contrary to the statute."<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>It is uncontested in this case that the notice-posting rule conforms to
the declared policy of the statute and is not arbitrary, capricious, or
manifestly contrary to the statute.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This
is a garden-variety Chevron <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">step</i>-<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">two</i> case notwithstanding the obfuscation
created by the Duncan opinion.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="correspondencepar" style="margin: 0in 0in 1em;">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">Clearly the NLRA is <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">silent</i> as to the <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">specific</i>
issue, which is the promulgation of the notice-posting rule in question,
therefore <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">step two</i> clearly applies,
which means giving deference to the Board’s reasonable interpretation of its
authority<span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial;">―</span>authority
which was expressly granted by Section 6 of the Act.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Ignoring the aforesaid <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Chevron </i>requirements for <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">step
one, </i>Judge Duncan’s opinion sought to use <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Chevron’s</i> reference to “employing traditional tools of statutory
construction” in an attempt to justify her conclusion that the rule was not
authorized, hence a <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">step one</i>
situation, but her opinion overlooked that this reference limited such coverage
to Congressional “intention on <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">the
precise question in issue</i>” only, i.e. to the specific notice-posting
requirement.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Instead, her opinion, which
evidently was based on a blinders view of the statutory scheme, asserted that
“there is no function or responsibility of the Board not predicated upon the
filing of an unfair labor practice charge or a representation petition” and
that “the Board is a reactive entity,” hence not intended to “allow proactive
rulemaking.” <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Even if that observation
were correct<span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial;">―</span>which
it is not, for the Board has a recognized and long-established proactive
function<span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial;">―</span>it would
not satisfy the <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Chevron</i> or <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">City of Arlington</i> requirement of finding
specificity as to the action in issue.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span></div>
<div class="correspondencepar" style="margin: 0in 0in 1em;">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">Indeed, the Board has both adjudicatory (i.e.
quasi-judicial) and rulemaking (i.e. quasi-legislative) functions.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It has issued innumerable <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">proactive</i> prophylactic rules regarding
employer conduct.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>For example:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The rule requiring employers to provide unions
with the names and addresses of eligible voters in representative elections, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Excelsior Underwear, Inc</i>., 156 NLRB 1236
(1966), and <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">NLRB v</i>. <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Wyman-Gordon</i>, 394 U.S. 759 (1969); the rule
prohibiting employers from enforcing no-solicitation rules on company property
in non-work areas on non-work time, violation of which constitutes Section
8(a)(1) “interference,” <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Republic</i> <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Aviation Corp. v. NLRB</i>, 324 U.S. 793
(1945); <span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Arial;">the rule requiring employers
in union-recognized workplaces to allow the presence of a union representative
during an investigatory-disciplinary hearing when requested by the interviewee,
otherwise Section 8(a)(1) is violated, <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">NLRB v. J. Weingarten, Inc., 420 U.S. 251
(1975)</i>;</span></span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 14pt;">
</span><span style="font-family: Arial;">the rule prohibiting an employer from not allowing employees to discussing
wages among themselves, which would constitute a Section 8(a)(1) “interference,”
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Jeannette Corp. v.</i> <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">NLRB</i>, 532 F.2d 916 (3<sup>rd</sup> Cir.
1976); and the rule prohibiting employers from discharging employees for
concertedly quitting work to protest working conditions, which would violate
Section 8(a)(1), <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">NLRB v. Washington
Aluminum Co</i>., 370 U.S. 9 (1962).</span></div>
<div class="correspondencepar" style="margin: 0in 0in 1em;">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">Most of the Board’s rulemaking has been achieved through
the process of adjudication, which the Supreme Court has recognized to be a
choice the Board usually may make notwithstanding the Court’s expressed preference
for Section 6 rulemaking, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">NLRB v. Bell
Aerospace Co., </i>416 U.S. 267, 292-293 (1974).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>As the Court stated in that case<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">,</i> absent special circumstances <span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Arial;">the “function of filling in the interstices
of [legislation] should be performed as much as possible, through [Section 6]
quasi-legislative promulgation of rules to be applied in the future.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>That Supreme Court preference was ignored by
Duncan’s opinion, which in effect deleted Section 6 from the Act, or at least denied
it any substantive functions.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Likewise unmentioned
was the Supreme Court’s broad and clear description of the Board’s rulemaking
authority in <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">American Hospital
Association v. NLRB</i> (499 U.S. 606,613 (1991), which declared that </span></span></div>
<div class="quote1" style="margin: 0in 0.5in 1em;">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">As a matter of statutory drafting, if Congress had intended to
curtail in a particular area the broad rulemaking authority granted in § 6, we
would have expected it to do so in language expressly describing an exception
from that section or at least referring specifically to the section.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">Despite the panel’s efforts to limit the impact of that
case, the above definitive Supreme Court statement of the authority conferred
by Section 6 was never referred to or discussed in the Duncan opinion.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span></div>
<div class="correspondencepar" style="margin: 0in 0in 1em;">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">The key questions in this case closely resemble
what the Board and Supreme Court confronted in <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">NLRB v. City Disposal systems, Inc</i>., 465 U.S. 822 (1984), where the
Court upheld the Board’s definition of <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>“concerted activity” in Section 7 to include
an employee’s assertion of a right grounded in a<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Arial;">collective-bargaining</span>
agreement.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">City</i> <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">of Arlington</i> the
Court cited <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">City Disposal Systems </i>for
the proposition that “<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Chevron </i>applies
to cases in which an agency adopts a construction of a jurisdictional provision
of a statute it administers.”</span></div>
<div class="correspondencepar" style="margin: 0in 0in 1em;">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">Section 6’s authorization of the Board’s substantive
rulemaking, which was overtly reconfirmed by Taft-Hartley’s legislative history,
Legislative History of the Labor-Management Relations Act, 1947 (1974) at 49,
99, 109, 226, 317, 330, 336, 366, 426, and House Conference Report at 542,
which the Duncan opinion chose to ignore, fully supports the Board’s issuance
of the notice-posting rule which, for proper reasons was deeme<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">d</i> “necessary” within the meaning of
Section 7.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Likewise, the broad language
of Section 6, which covers all “provisions” of the Act, not just the reactive
ones designated by the Chamber and agreed to by the Duncan opinion, also covers
Sections 1, 7, and 8(a)(1).</span></div>
<div class="correspondencepar" style="margin: 0in 0in 1em;">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">The decision in <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Chamber
v. NLRB</i> is thus ripe for reversal, hopefully by its own court pursuant to
en banc review. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
Charles J. Morris,http://www.blogger.com/profile/01893087451435558969noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-195362782974793357.post-34866084845615989902013-06-13T14:07:00.002-07:002013-06-13T14:07:26.218-07:00NLRB Employee-Rights Posters and Employers' Free Speech
<br />
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: center;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: Arial;">NLRB Employee-Rights Posters and Employers’ Free Speech<o:p></o:p></span></b></div>
<br />
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: 10pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial;">by<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<br />
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: center;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: Arial;">Charles J. Morris<o:p></o:p></span></b></div>
<br />
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: 10pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial;">Professor<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Emertus, Dedman School of Law<br />
Southern Methodist University<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<br />
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: Arial;"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-size: 8pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial;">©</span></b><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-size: 8pt;"> Charles J.
Morris 2013<o:p></o:p></span></b></span></div>
<br />
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: center;">
<o:p><span style="font-family: Arial;"> </span></o:p></div>
<br />
<div class="correspondencepar" style="margin: 0in 0in 1em;">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">A recent decision by a panel of<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>judges of the District of Columbia Circuit Court
of Appeals in <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">National Association of
Manufacturers</i> (NAM)<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"> v. NLRB</i>,</span><a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=195362782974793357#_ftn1" name="_ftnref1" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn1;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;">[1]</span></span></span></span></a><span style="font-family: Arial;">
in an Opinion by Judge A. Raymond Randolph, holds that a rule issued by the <span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Arial;">National Labor Relations Board</span> (NLRB
or Board) on August 30, 2011, that requires employers to display a poster that
advises employees of their rights under the <span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Arial;">National Labor Relations Act (NLRA or Act)<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=195362782974793357#_ftn2" name="_ftnref2" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn2;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;">[2]</span></span></span></span></a> is
unconstitutional because it violates the First Amendment free-speech rights of employers.
<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The New York Times’ characterization of
that decision as “outrageous”<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=195362782974793357#_ftn3" name="_ftnref3" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn3;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;">[3]</span></span></span></span></a>
expresses the natural reaction to a ruling that uses the cover of free speech
to suppress free speech.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Judge
Randolph’s decision raises the critical question of whether by final judicial
determination this notice-posting rule will be deemed a violation of the
Constitution, for if so, most governmentally required notice postings (both
federal and state) <span style="color: black;">that are </span>commonly displayed
in millions of American workplaces will no longer be mandatory.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Based on established case law, the final answer
to that question should be that the rule does not violate the First Amendment;
thus the existing familiar notice- postings will safely continue.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>However, before examining that established law,
a background item is worthy of note.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<br />
<div class="correspondencepar" style="margin: 0in 0in 1em;">
<span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Arial;"><span style="font-family: Arial;">Although
the employer plaintiffs in this D.C. Appeals case, the NAM and the National
Right to Work Legal Defense and Education Foundation, contend that the Board
lacks statutory jurisdiction to issue a rule that requires <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">employers</i> to display posters that inform their employees about
their rights under the Act, <span style="text-transform: uppercase;">nlrb </span>records
reveal that this contention is hypocritical and inconsistent with the position
they and other employer organizations, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce,
took in 1992 and 1993,</span><a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=195362782974793357#_ftn4" name="_ftnref4" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn4;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;">[4]</span></span></span></span></a><span style="font-family: Arial;"> which
was that Section 6 of the Act</span><a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=195362782974793357#_ftn5" name="_ftnref5" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn5;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;">[5]</span></span></span></span></a><span style="font-family: Arial;">
provided the Board with ample jurisdiction to require <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">unions </i>to inform union-represented employees by mail or workplace postings
about their rights “to join or refrain from joining a union and the financial
obligation incident to each status.”</span><a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=195362782974793357#_ftn6" name="_ftnref6" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn6;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;">[6]</span></span></span></span></a><span style="font-family: Arial;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>These same organizations have now reversed that
position, arguing that Section 6 does not grant the Board statutory
jurisdiction to issue that type of rule<span style="color: black;">―</span>the only
significant difference now being that the current rule requires <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">employers</i> rather than <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">unions</i> to post the notices. <o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<br />
<div class="correspondencepar" style="margin: 0in 0in 1em;">
<span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Arial;"><span style="font-family: Arial;">Without
claiming any prescience as to the ultimate applicability of statutory
jurisdiction in this case<span style="color: black;">―</span>for as a result of the
Supreme Court’s recent decision in <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">City
of Arlington v. F.C.C.<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=195362782974793357#_ftn7" name="_ftnref7" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn7;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;">[7]</span></b></span></span></span></a></i> it
is now virtually certain that Section 6 grants the Board unassailable statutory
jurisdiction to issue the rule in question<span style="color: black;">―Judge
Randolph </span>chose not to base his decision on an alleged absence of Section
6 statutory jurisdiction;</span><a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=195362782974793357#_ftn8" name="_ftnref8" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn8;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;">[8]</span></span></span></span></a><span style="font-family: Arial;"> instead,
he predicated that decision on the novel premise that the Board lacks
jurisdiction to issue the rule because it violates the First Amendment of the
U.S. Constitution.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>He reaches this surprising
conclusion by way of a unique free-speech construction of Section 8(c) of the
Act, a provision that reads as follows:<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<br />
<div class="quote1" style="margin: 0in 0.5in 1em;">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">The expressing of any views, argument, or opinion, or the
dissemination thereof, whether in written, printed, graphic, or visual form,
shall not constitute or be evidence of an unfair labor practice under any of
the provisions of this [Act], if such expression contains no threat of reprisal
or force or promise of benefit.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="correspondencepar" style="margin: 0in 0in 1em;">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">Judge Randolph does not question the even-handedness
and fairness of the poster’s portrayal of the statutory rights. Indeed his Opinion
acknowledges that <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="quote1" style="margin: 0in 0.5in 1em;">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">The poster informs employees of their right to form, join, or
assist a union; to bargain collectively through representatives of their
choosing; to discuss wages, benefits, and other terms and conditions of
employment with fellow employees or a union; to take action to improve working
conditions; to strike and picket; or to choose not to engage in any of<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>these activities.</span><a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=195362782974793357#_ftn9" name="_ftnref9" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn9;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;">[9]</span></span></span></span></a><o:p></o:p></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">Yet, notwithstanding the neutrality of that message, he finds
that because the employer plaintiffs “object to the message the government has
ordered them to publish on their premises”</span><a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=195362782974793357#_ftn10" name="_ftnref10" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn10;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;">[10]</span></span></span></span></a><span style="font-family: Arial;"> the
rule violates the First Amendment and <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Section 8(c).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>He asserts that “[a]lthough <span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Arial;">§ </span>8(c)
precludes the Board from finding noncoercive speech to be an unfair labor
practice, or evidence of an unfair labor practice, the Board’s rule does both”</span><a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=195362782974793357#_ftn11" name="_ftnref11" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn11;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;">[11]</span></span></span></span></a><span style="font-family: Arial;"> because,
notwithstanding that “[i]t is obviously correct that the poster contains the
Board’s speech,”</span><a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=195362782974793357#_ftn12" name="_ftnref12" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn12;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;">[12]</span></span></span></span></a><span style="font-family: Arial;">
employers are required to “disseminate” that poster “upon pain of being held to
have committed an unfair labor practice”</span><a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=195362782974793357#_ftn13" name="_ftnref13" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn13;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;">[13]</span></span></span></span></a><span style="font-family: Arial;"> for the
“language of <span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Arial;">§</span> 8(c) covers
[the] ‘<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">dissemination’</i> of ‘any views,
arguments, or opinions.’”</span><a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=195362782974793357#_ftn14" name="_ftnref14" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn14;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;">[14]</span></span></span></span></a><span style="font-family: Arial;"> <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>He therefore declares that inasmuch as “[t]he
right to disseminate another’s speech necessarily includes the right to decide
not to disseminate it,”</span><a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=195362782974793357#_ftn15" name="_ftnref15" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn15;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;">[15]</span></span></span></span></a><span style="font-family: Arial;"> and
because refusal to post the notice, i.e., the Board’s speech, constitutes an
unfair labor practice, that right to refuse is protected by the First Amendment.</span><a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=195362782974793357#_ftn16" name="_ftnref16" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn16;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;">[16]</span></span></span></span></a><o:p></o:p></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<o:p><span style="font-family: Arial;"> </span></o:p></div>
<br />
<div class="correspondencepar" style="margin: 0in 0in 1em;">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">Judge Randolph arrives at that unqualified conclusion
without pausing to confront the established standards spelled out in <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">United States v. </i>O’<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Brien,’</i></span><a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=195362782974793357#_ftn17" name="_ftnref17" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn17;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Arial;"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;">[17]</span></b></span></span></span></i></span></a><span style="font-family: Arial;">
the leading case applicable to governmental regulations that might encroach
upon First Amendment free speech, where the Supreme Court emphasized that such
a regulation <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></i><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="quote1" style="margin: 0in 0.5in 1em;">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">is sufficiently justified if it is within the constitutional
power of the Government; if it furthers an important or substantial
governmental interest; if the governmental interest is unrelated to the suppression
of free expression; and if the incidental restriction on alleged <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><u>First Amendment</u></i> freedoms is no
greater than is essential to the furtherance of that interest.</span><a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=195362782974793357#_ftn18" name="_ftnref18" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn18;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;">[18]</span></span></span></span></a><o:p></o:p></div>
<br />
<div class="correspondencepar" style="margin: 0in 0in 1em;">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">Instead of examining the Board’s rule in relation to
the <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">O’Brien </i>factors, Judge Randolph relies
on two wholly inapplicable groups of cases, including three pre-<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">O’Brien</i> cases. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">First</i>,
where the governmental interest was deemed insufficient to override
constitutional free speech, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Wooley v.
Maynard</i></span><a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=195362782974793357#_ftn19" name="_ftnref19" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn19;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;">[19]</span></span></span></span></a><span style="font-family: Arial;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"> </i>(a New Hampshire law that required
motorists to display the state motto “Live Free or Die” on their license plates),
and <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">West Virginia State Board of
Education v. Barnette</i></span><a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=195362782974793357#_ftn20" name="_ftnref20" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn20;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;">[20]</span></span></span></span></a><span style="font-family: Arial;">
(a state law that required school children to recite the Pledge of Allegiance
and salute the flag).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>S<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">econd</i>, where the means chosen to
accomplish a legitimate governmental objective was deemed unconstitutional
because it was unduly burdensome and not narrowly tailored, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Riley v. National Federation of the Blind</i>”</span><a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=195362782974793357#_ftn21" name="_ftnref21" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn21;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;">[21]</span></span></span></span></a><span style="font-family: Arial;">
(a North Carolina law that was intended to prevent fraud by donation-solicitors
who were required to disclose to potential donors the percentage of donated
revenue retained by the soliciting charity, i.e., the unwanted speech; it also purported
to define by a complex formula the reasonable fee that fundraisers could
charge, and it required fundraisers to obtain licenses before soliciting).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="correspondencepar" style="margin: 0in 0in 1em;">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">If Judge Randolph had relied instead on the
straight-forward tests in <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">O’Brien</i> and
<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>their application in its progeny cases,</span><a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=195362782974793357#_ftn22" name="_ftnref22" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn22;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;">[22]</span></span></span></span></a><span style="font-family: Arial;">
which are specifically pertinent to governmental regulations that reasonably
restrict some element of free speech in order to rationally serve an important
public interest, he would surely have recognized that all of the <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">O’Brien</i> requirements are fully satisfied
by the Board’s notice-posting rule, which therefore does not violate the First
Amendment. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="correspondencepar" style="margin: 0in 0in 1em;">
<span style="font-family: Arial;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Turner
Broadcasting System, Inc. v. F.C.C</i>.</span><a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=195362782974793357#_ftn23" name="_ftnref23" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn23;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;">[23]</span></span></span></span></a><span style="font-family: Arial;">
is an <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">O’Brien</i> progeny case directly
in point.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The issue there was whether
provisions in the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of
1992, which requires cable television companies to dedicate some of their channels
to broadcasting programs of local television stations<span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial;"> (</span>known as must-carry provisions) violated the First
Amendment rights of cable television companies who were thus required<span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial;">―</span>like the employers under
the Board’s notice-posting rule<span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial;">―</span>to publish messages against their will.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The Supreme Court concluded that because “the
burden imposed by must-carry is congruent to the benefits it affords [and] is narrowly
tailored to preserve a multiplicity of broadcast stations for...households
without cable,”</span><a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=195362782974793357#_ftn24" name="_ftnref24" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn24;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;">[24]</span></span></span></span></a><span style="font-family: Arial;">
which was an acceptable Congressional objective, the “must-carry” provisions
did not violate of the First Amendment.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>As
further demonstration that “must-carry” met the <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">O’Brien</i> standards, the Court highlighted some of the benchmarks that
it had articulated in two other progeny cases.</span><a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=195362782974793357#_ftn25" name="_ftnref25" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn25;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;">[25]</span></span></span></span></a><span style="font-family: Arial;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Ward
v. Rock Against Racism</i></span><a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=195362782974793357#_ftn26" name="_ftnref26" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn26;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;">[26]</span></span></span></span></a><span style="font-family: Arial;">
it stressed that “’the essence of narrow tailoring” is “focusing on the evils
the [Government] seeks to eliminate...[without] significantly restricting a
substantial quantity of speech that does not create the same evils.” <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And in <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Clark
v. Community for Creative Non-Violence</i></span><a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=195362782974793357#_ftn27" name="_ftnref27" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn27;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;">[27]</span></span></span></span></a><span style="font-family: Arial;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"> </i>it noted that<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"> </i>“[n]one of [the regulation’s] provisions appear unrelated to the
ends that it was designed to serve.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>By
these standards, the NLRB’s notice-posting rule clearly focuses on the evils of
employees’ widespread lack of knowledge about their rights under the NLRA and
how they can be enforced, which the Board had established without any contradiction.</span><a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=195362782974793357#_ftn28" name="_ftnref28" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn28;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;">[28]</span></span></span></span></a><span style="font-family: Arial;">
As the district court held, the NLRB’s <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="quote1" style="margin: 0in 0.5in 1em;">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">dissemination of information about employee rights is well
within its bailiwick.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The Board is not
attempting to regulate entities or individuals other than those that Congress
expressly authorized it to regulate [and] the stated purpose of the rule is directly
related to the policy behind the NLRA.<span class="MsoFootnoteReference"> <a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=195362782974793357#_ftn29" name="_ftnref29" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn29;" title=""><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;">[29]</span></span></span></a></span>
<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">And, like the regulation approved in <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Community for Creative Non-Violence</i>, the Board’s rule is closely
related to the “ends it was designed to serve,” i.e., to inform employees of
their statutory rights, and it does not significantly restrict anyone’s
speech.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The poster is unmistakably the
voice of the NLRB, a governmental agency and not the voice of the employer, who
remains free to post anything anywhere in the workplace and to tell anything to
the employees, singly or in captive-audience groups, provided only that such
expressions contain no “threat of reprisal or force or promise of benefit.”<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<o:p><span style="font-family: Arial;"> </span></o:p></div>
<br />
<div class="correspondencepar" style="margin: 0in 0in 1em;">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">Established constitutional law thus confirms that the
Board’s notice-posting rule does not violate the employers’ First Amendment
rights for<span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial;">―</span>in the
words of the Supreme Court in another <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">O’Brien</i>
progeny case<span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial;">―</span> this
rule was “designed <span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Arial;">to serve a
substantial governmental interest and allows for reasonable alternative avenues
of communication.”<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=195362782974793357#_ftn30" name="_ftnref30" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn30;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;">[30]</span></span></span></span></a><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Accordingly, Judge Randolph’s contrary thesis
cannot survive.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<br />
<div class="correspondencepar" style="margin: 0in 0in 1em;">
<span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Arial;"><o:p><span style="font-family: Arial;"> </span></o:p></span><a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=195362782974793357#_ftnref1" name="_ftn1" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn1;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;">1]</span></span></span></span></a><span style="font-family: Arial;">
National Ass’n of Mfgrs v. NLRB, No. 12-5068 & No. 12-5138 (4<sup>th</sup>
Cir. May 7, 2013) (hereinafter slip op.).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">And see</i> note 8 <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">infra</i>.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="mso-element: footnote-list;">
<div id="ftn2" style="mso-element: footnote;">
<div class="MsoFootnoteText" style="margin: 0in 0in 12pt;">
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=195362782974793357#_ftnref2" name="_ftn2" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn2;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;">[2]</span></span></span></span></a><span style="font-family: Arial;">
76 Fed. Reg. 54,006.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</div>
<div id="ftn3" style="mso-element: footnote;">
<div class="MsoFootnoteText" style="margin: 0in 0in 12pt;">
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=195362782974793357#_ftnref3" name="_ftn3" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn3;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;">[3]</span></span></span></span></a><span style="font-family: Arial;">
NYT editorial, May 10, 2013.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</div>
<div id="ftn4" style="mso-element: footnote;">
<div class="MsoFootnoteText" style="margin: 0in 0in 12pt;">
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=195362782974793357#_ftnref4" name="_ftn4" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn4;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;">[4]</span></span></span></span></a><span style="font-family: Arial;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">See</i> 29 C.F.R. Part 103.40(e)&(f),
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Union Dues Regulation</i>
(9/22/1992).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>For full documentation of
these positions, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">see</i> district court’s
opinion in National Ass’n of Mfgrs v. NLRB, 846 Supp.2d 34, 48 n.9 (2012).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
</div>
<div id="ftn5" style="mso-element: footnote;">
<div class="MsoFootnoteText" style="margin: 0in 0in 12pt;">
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=195362782974793357#_ftnref5" name="_ftn5" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn5;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;">[5]</span></span></span></span></a><span style="font-family: Arial;">
<span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Arial;">§</span> 6 (29 U.S.C. <span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Arial;">§</span> 156) : “The Board shall have
authority from time to time to make, amend, and rescind, in the manner
prescribed by the Administrative Procedure Act, such rules and regulations as
may be necessary to carry out the provisions of this Act.”<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</div>
<div id="ftn6" style="mso-element: footnote;">
<div class="MsoFootnoteText" style="margin: 12pt 0in;">
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=195362782974793357#_ftnref6" name="_ftn6" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn6;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;">[6]</span></span></span></span></a><span style="font-family: Arial;">
29 C.F.R. <span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Arial;">§ 102.124 & 5 U.S.C. (e).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span>That one-sided proposal prompted the
author of this article to file in 1993 an “interested person’s” petition <span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Arial;">proposing that the union-notice proposed
rule be replaced by a balanced rule requiring posting of a general notice that
would advise employees of all their basic rights under the NLRB.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>That petition remained inactive until 2010
when the Board responded by considering and issuing the notice-posting rule in
2011 that the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals panel held unconstitutional.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
</div>
<div id="ftn7" style="mso-element: footnote;">
<div class="MsoFootnoteText" style="margin: 0in 0in 12pt;">
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=195362782974793357#_ftnref7" name="_ftn7" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn7;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;">[7]</span></span></span></span></a><span style="font-family: Arial;">
Nos. 11-1545 and 1547 (U.S. S.Ct, May 20, 2013).<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</div>
<div id="ftn8" style="mso-element: footnote;">
<div class="MsoFootnoteText" style="margin: 0in 0in 12pt;">
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=195362782974793357#_ftnref8" name="_ftn8" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn8;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;">[8]</span></span></span></span></a><span style="font-family: Arial;">
However, the other members of the panel, Judges Karen LeCraft Henderson and
Janice Rogers Brown, although they concurred with Judge Randolph’s Opinion,
added that they would also find that the “NLRA<span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial;">―</span>and Section 6 in particular” does not authorize
issuance of the rule.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</div>
<div id="ftn9" style="mso-element: footnote;">
<div class="MsoFootnoteText" style="margin: 0in 0in 12pt;">
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=195362782974793357#_ftnref9" name="_ftn9" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn9;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;">[9]</span></span></span></span></a><span style="font-family: Arial;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Supra</i> note 1, slip op., at 4. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
</div>
<div id="ftn10" style="mso-element: footnote;">
<div class="MsoFootnoteText" style="margin: 0in 0in 12pt;">
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=195362782974793357#_ftnref10" name="_ftn10" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn10;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;">[10]</span></span></span></span></a><span style="font-family: Arial;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Id</i>., at 19.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</div>
<div id="ftn11" style="mso-element: footnote;">
<div class="MsoFootnoteText" style="margin: 0in 0in 12pt;">
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=195362782974793357#_ftnref11" name="_ftn11" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn11;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;">[11]</span></span></span></span></a><span style="font-family: Arial;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Id</i>., at 14.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</div>
<div id="ftn12" style="mso-element: footnote;">
<div class="MsoFootnoteText" style="margin: 0in 0in 12pt;">
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=195362782974793357#_ftnref12" name="_ftn12" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn12;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;">[12]</span></span></span></span></a><span style="font-family: Arial;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Id</i>., at 15.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</div>
<div id="ftn13" style="mso-element: footnote;">
<div class="MsoFootnoteText" style="margin: 0in 0in 12pt;">
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=195362782974793357#_ftnref13" name="_ftn13" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn13;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;">[13]</span></span></span></span></a><span style="font-family: Arial;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Id</i>., at 17.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</div>
<div id="ftn14" style="mso-element: footnote;">
<div class="MsoFootnoteText" style="margin: 0in 0in 12pt;">
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=195362782974793357#_ftnref14" name="_ftn14" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn14;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;">[14]</span></span></span></span></a><span style="font-family: Arial;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Id</i>., at 16.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Arial;">Emphasis
added.</span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
</div>
<div id="ftn15" style="mso-element: footnote;">
<div class="MsoFootnoteText" style="margin: 0in 0in 12pt;">
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=195362782974793357#_ftnref15" name="_ftn15" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn15;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;">[15]</span></span></span></span></a><span style="font-family: Arial;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Id</i>.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</div>
<div id="ftn16" style="mso-element: footnote;">
<div class="MsoFootnoteText" style="margin: 0in 0in 12pt;">
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=195362782974793357#_ftnref16" name="_ftn16" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn16;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;">[16]</span></span></span></span></a><span style="font-family: Arial;">
Citing<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Pac. Gas & Electric Co. v. Pub. Utils. Comm’n, </i>475 U.S. 1, 11
(1986) (“<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">all</i> speech inherently
involves choices of what to say and what to leave unsaid.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Emphasis in original.)<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</div>
<div id="ftn17" style="mso-element: footnote;">
<div class="MsoFootnoteText" style="margin: 0in 0in 12pt;">
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=195362782974793357#_ftnref17" name="_ftn17" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn17;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;">[17]</span></span></span></span></a><span style="font-family: Arial;">
391 U.S. 367 (1968).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">See also</i>, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">e.g. </i>the following<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"> </i>of its
progeny cases:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</div>
<div id="ftn18" style="mso-element: footnote;">
<div class="MsoFootnoteText" style="margin: 0in 0in 12pt;">
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=195362782974793357#_ftnref18" name="_ftn18" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn18;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;">[18]</span></span></span></span></a><span style="font-family: Arial;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Id</i>., at 377.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Arial;">Emphasis
in original.</span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
</div>
<div id="ftn19" style="mso-element: footnote;">
<div class="MsoFootnoteText" style="margin: 0in 0in 12pt;">
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=195362782974793357#_ftnref19" name="_ftn19" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn19;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;">[19]</span></span></span></span></a><span style="font-family: Arial;">430
U.S. 705 (1977). <o:p></o:p></span></div>
</div>
<div id="ftn20" style="mso-element: footnote;">
<div class="MsoFootnoteText" style="margin: 0in 0in 12pt;">
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=195362782974793357#_ftnref20" name="_ftn20" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn20;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;">[20]</span></span></span></span></a><span style="font-family: Arial;">
319 U.S. 644 (1943).<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</div>
<div id="ftn21" style="mso-element: footnote;">
<div class="MsoFootnoteText" style="margin: 0in 0in 12pt;">
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=195362782974793357#_ftnref21" name="_ftn21" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn21;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;">[21]</span></span></span></span></a><span style="font-family: Arial;">
Riley v. National Federation of the Blind, 487 U.S. 781, 798 (1988).<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</div>
<div id="ftn22" style="mso-element: footnote;">
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=195362782974793357#_ftnref22" name="_ftn22" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn22;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;">[22]</span></span></span></span></a><span style="font-family: Arial;">
E<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">.g., Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v.
F.C.C., </i>520 U.S. 180 (1997); <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Ward v.
Rock Against Racism</i>, 491 U.S. 781 (1989); <span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Arial;">Renton v. Playtime Theatres, 475 U.S. 41 (1986); United States v.
Albertini, 472 U.S. 675 1985); </span>Clark v. Community for Creative
Non-Violence, 468 U.S. 288 (1984); Members of City Council v. Taxpayers for
Vincent, 466 U.S. 789 (1984).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoFootnoteText" style="margin: 0in 0in 12pt;">
<o:p><span style="font-family: Arial;"> </span></o:p></div>
</div>
<div id="ftn23" style="mso-element: footnote;">
<div class="MsoFootnoteText" style="margin: 0in 0in 12pt;">
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=195362782974793357#_ftnref23" name="_ftn23" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn23;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;">[23]</span></span></span></span></a><span style="font-family: Arial;">
Note 26, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">supra.</i><o:p></o:p></span></div>
</div>
<div id="ftn24" style="mso-element: footnote;">
<div class="MsoFootnoteText" style="margin: 0in 0in 12pt;">
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=195362782974793357#_ftnref24" name="_ftn24" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn24;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;">[24]</span></span></span></span></a><span style="font-family: Arial;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Id</i>., at 215-216.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</div>
<div id="ftn25" style="mso-element: footnote;">
<div class="MsoFootnoteText" style="margin: 0in 0in 12pt;">
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=195362782974793357#_ftnref25" name="_ftn25" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn25;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;">[25]</span></span></span></span></a><span style="font-family: Arial;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Id</i>.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</div>
<div id="ftn26" style="mso-element: footnote;">
<div class="MsoFootnoteText" style="margin: 0in 0in 12pt;">
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=195362782974793357#_ftnref26" name="_ftn26" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn26;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;">[26]</span></span></span></span></a><span style="font-family: Arial;">
Note 26, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">supra</i> at 799 n. 7. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
</div>
<div id="ftn27" style="mso-element: footnote;">
<div class="MsoFootnoteText" style="margin: 0in 0in 12pt;">
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=195362782974793357#_ftnref27" name="_ftn27" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn27;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;">[27]</span></span></span></span></a><span style="font-family: Arial;">
Note 26, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">supra</i> at 297.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</div>
<div id="ftn28" style="mso-element: footnote;">
<div class="MsoFootnoteText" style="margin: 0in 0in 12pt;">
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=195362782974793357#_ftnref28" name="_ftn28" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn28;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;">[28]</span></span></span></span></a><span style="font-family: Arial;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">See</i> district court’s opinion in National
Ass’n of Mfgrs v. NLRB, 846 F.Supp.2d 34, 51 (2012).<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</div>
<div id="ftn29" style="mso-element: footnote;">
<div class="MsoFootnoteText" style="margin: 0in 0in 12pt;">
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=195362782974793357#_ftnref29" name="_ftn29" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn29;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;">[29]</span></span></span></span></a><span style="font-family: Arial;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Id., </i>at 45.<span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Arial;"> §</span> 1 of the Act declares the policy of the United States to be
the encouragement of collective bargaining and the protection of workers exercising
full freedom of association through representatives of their own choosing for
the purpose of negotiating the terms and conditions of their employment or
other mutual aid or protection.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</div>
<div id="ftn30" style="mso-element: footnote;">
<div class="MsoFootnoteText" style="margin: 0in 0in 12pt;">
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=195362782974793357#_ftnref30" name="_ftn30" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn30;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;">[30]</span></span></span></span></a><span style="font-family: Arial;">
<span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Arial;">Renton v. Playtime Theatres,</span> <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">supra</i> note<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>at 50).<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</div>
</div>
Charles J. Morris,http://www.blogger.com/profile/01893087451435558969noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-195362782974793357.post-90330335658213751912012-04-18T16:23:00.000-07:002012-04-20T12:30:27.226-07:00Are Employers Afraid of Employees Learning of their NLRA Rights?<br />
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: center;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: Arial;">The Latest Obstacle Against Posting Notices of NLRA Rights</span></b><span style="font-family: Arial;"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial;">―</span>Are <br />
Employers Afraid </b><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Arial;">Employees </span>Might Learn Of Their Rights
and Exercise Them?<o:p></o:p></b></span></div>
<br />
<br />
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: center;">
By<br />
Charles J. Morris<br />
(c) 2012</div>
<div class="articleparagraph" style="margin: 6pt 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">The 2011 notice-posting rule of the <span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Arial;">National Labor Relations Board (NLRB or
Board)</span> continues to receive intense judicial scrutiny in the two federal
court cases pending in Washington D.C. and Charleston, South Carolina.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In the D.C. case, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">National Association of Manufacturers <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>v. NLRB</i>, Judge Amy Berman Jackson ruled in
favor of the NLRB on the basic issue, approving issuance of the rule, but she struck
down its enforcement procedures.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Those
issues will be decided on appeal and cross appeal in the D.C. Court of Appeals where
the case is now pending; that court just issued an injunction prohibiting
application of the rule while its validity is being determined.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The latest ruling on the substantive issue occurred
on April 13 in the South Carolina case, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Chamber
of Commerce v. NLRB</i>, where Judge David Norton held that the Board had no
authority to issue the rule; the Board has indicated that it will appeal.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="articleparagraph" style="margin: 6pt 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">With court approval, I filed amicus-curiae briefs in
both of those district court cases,<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This
was consistent with my continued interest in this important issue, which began
nineteen years ago when I filed the rulemaking petition that initiated the
Board’s issuance of the rule that is now being challenged. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I briefly noted this issue in my first blog on
February 25, and I shall now focus attention on Judge Norton’s ruling in the <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Chamber of Commerce </i>case in which he unequivocally
held that the Board lacked authority under the <span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Arial;">National Labor Relations Act</span> (NLRA) to issue a rule requiring all
employers subject to the Board’s jurisdiction to post an NLRB notice in their workplaces
that advises employees of their rights under the NLRA and how to obtain
protection of those rights. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="articleparagraph" style="margin: 6pt 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">In terms of settled law, Judge Norton’s Opinion is
incredible.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In the unlikely event that
it is allowed to stand, he will, by judicial fiat, have effectively repealed
Section 6 of the NLRA, the provision that authorizes the Board to issue substantive
rules in accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), and by logical
implication it will have also limited the Board’s ability to issue any such broad
rule by adjudication.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Disregarding basic
Supreme Court tests regarding agency rulemaking, Judge Norton invented a new test
that is so extreme that it would have denied the Board’s right to issue the important
unit rule for acute hospital care employees which the Supreme Court approved in
the <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">American Hospital Association </i>case
with specific language that Judge Norton quoted but failed to heed, which is that
<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="quote1" style="margin: 0in 0.5in 1em;">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">if Congress had intended to curtail in a particular area the
broad rulemaking authority granted in <span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Arial;">§</span>
6, we would have expected it to do so in language expressly describing an
exception from that section or at least referring specifically to that section.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="flushparagraph" style="margin: 6pt 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">Ignoring those unambiguous words from the highest
court, Judge Norton has ruled just the opposite.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Under his topical heading of “The Meaning of
Silence,” he asserts that<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="quote1" style="margin: 0in 0.5in 1em;">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">Because the statute is “silent” as to the notice posting, the
court must look beyond the plain language of the statute to determine whether
Congress intended to delegate authority to the Board to fill this legislative
silence.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="flushparagraph" style="margin: 6pt 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">Prior to that, however, his tortuous Opinion asserts that
the “court must be guided by the plain meaning of the word ‘necessary’ [in
Section 6] and the statutory framework that channels the Board’s powers away
from proactive regulation of employers to a mechanism whereby the Board’s
functions are triggered by an outside party.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Then, as if with blinders on his eyes, he purports to examine the
“Statutory Scheme,” but he fails to see the quasi-legislative nature of Section
6 (as well as the Supreme Court’s definition of that section), focusing instead
on his limited view of what Congress intended, which is that the Board is to “be
a reactive, quasi-judicial<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"> </i>body with
two primary functions,” i.e., deciding unfair-labor-practice cases and
conducting representation elections. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>He
is correct about the Board’s quasi-judicial function, but he overlooks its proactive
function, which Section 6 specifies.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>The Board alone is given the authority to initiate and adopt substantive
rules by “notice and comment” rulemaking, which was emphasized and clarified by
Taft-Hartley’s legislative history of the APA feature, which the court’s Opinion
fails to mention.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="articleparagraph" style="margin: 6pt 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">Judge Norton departs from the common judicial definition
of “necessary” by declaring that the present Board has confused a “ ‘necessary’
rule with one that is simply useful, although he concedes that “[t]he court<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>does not discredit the Board’s factual
finding of a need for the notice-posting rule” and that “the court respects the
Board’s decision on that issue,” nor does he dispute the Board’s finding with
regard to employees’ knowledge of their rights under the NLRA, that “most
employees are unaware of those rights.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Yet,
he says, these facts are not sufficient because the Board “defendants have not
shown that the rule is ‘necessary’ to carry out any other provision of the
Act.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This is so, according to the
Opinion,<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>because “the Act places no
affirmative obligation on employers to post notices of employee rights or
inform employees of those rights [therefore] the rule cannot be ‘necessary’ to
carry out a nonexistent provision.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="articleparagraph" style="margin: 6pt 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">Of course such provision is not “nonexistent,” for it,
or more properly <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">they</i>, are clearly contained
and stated in Sections 1, 7, and 8(a)(1).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Section 6, by its clear text, applies to <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">all</i> provisions of the Act, i.e., it grants "authority...to make...such rules and regulations as may be necessary to carry out <em>the provisions</em> of this Act." (Emphais added.) <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="articleparagraph" style="margin: 6pt 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Arial;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Regarding <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Section 1</i>, as Judge Norton inconsistently
concedes that the “[notice-posting] ‘rule’ aids or ‘furthers’ the aspirational
goals of Section 1 by notifying employees of their rights under Section 7.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Indeed, Section 1 clearly declares that “the policy
of the United States” is<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="quote1" style="margin: 0in 0.5in 1em;">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">encouraging the practice and procedure of collective bargaining
and by protecting the exercise by workers of full freedom of association,
self-organization, <span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Arial;">and designation of
representatives of their own choosing, for the purpose of negotiating the terms
and conditions of their employment or other mutual aid or protection.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<br />
<div class="flushparagraph" style="margin: 6pt 0in; tab-stops: 22.5pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">Regarding <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Section 7, </i>this is the provision that represents the primary content
of the notice to be<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>posted.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And regarding <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Section 8(a)(1), </i>this is the provision which states that it is<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>“an unfair labor practice for an
employer...to <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">interfere with</i>...employees
in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in section 7.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>(<span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Arial;">Emphasis
added</span>.) <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="articleparagraph" style="margin: 6pt 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">Of these three applicable provisions, Section 8(a)(1)<span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial;">―</span>which Judge Norton never
discusses<span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial;">―</span>is the key
provision directly involved in the Board’s determination that is expressed in
the notice-posting rule, that a refusal to post notices informing employees of
their Section 7 rights and how to protect those rights <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">interferes</i> with the exercise of those rights and that such a refusal
can be the subject of a subsequent charge alleging violation of Section 8(a)(1)
.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This is when the Board’s
quasi-judicial function is “triggered by an outside party.” <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="articleparagraph" style="margin: 6pt 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">This Section 8(a)(1) determination is similar to what
occurred when the Board fashioned the <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Weingarten</i>
rule (through the traditional alternative-method of rulemaking through
adjudication that was validated in <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">NLRB
v. Bell Aerospace Co</i>.), which established that a refusal by an employer to
allow the presence of a grievant’s union representative, when so requested by
the grievant, violates Section 8(a)(1), which the Supreme Court fully approved.
<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Weingarten</i>
rule, like the notice-posting rule in issue, requires the employer to do something <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">before, and without reference to</i>, the
filing of an unfair labor practice charge, but failure to allow the
representative’s presence<span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial;">―</span>like
the failure to post the notice in the <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Chamber
of Commerce case</i><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial;">―</span></i> creates a potential
unfair labor practice.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span></div>
<div class="articleparagraph" style="margin: 6pt 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">The Supreme Court
in <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Weingarten</i> also defined the
Board’s role in a manner especially applicable to the Board’s issuance of the
notice-posting rule that Judge Norton was reviewing.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Here is that definition:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="quote1" style="margin: 0in 0.5in 1em;">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">The use by an administrative agency of the evolutional approach
is particularly fitting.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>To hold that
the Board’s earlier decisions froze the development of this important aspect of
the national labor law would misconceive the nature of administrative
decisionmaking....<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="quote1" style="margin: 0in 0.5in 1em;">
<span style="font-family: Arial;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>The
responsibility to adapt the Act to changing patterns of industrial life is
entrusted to the Board....It is the province of the Board, not the courts, to
determine whether or not the “need” exists in light of changing industrial
practices and the Board’s cumulative experience in dealing with labor
-management relations.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>For the board has
the “special function of applying the general provisions of the Act to the
complexities of industrial life”.... <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="articleparagraph" style="margin: 6pt 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">Although there are many errors in Judge Norton’s
Order/Opinion in addition to the few briefly noted above, those are the ones
that immediately stand out.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="articleparagraph" style="margin: 6pt 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">I close this comment with four questions:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>(1) Why are nonunion employers so afraid of
employees learning about their basic rights under the <span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Arial;">National Labor Relations Act?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>(2)
Could it be that they are afraid that some of them might exercise those rights?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>(3) And why is the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and
the NAM, as well as other major non-union organizations, including the National
Right to Work Foundation, now contending that the Board has no authority to
issue this prophylactic notice-posting rule in view of the fact that they
previously supported an earlier effort to have the Board issue a similar rule
requiring unions to post a prophylactic notice relating to certain union unfair
labor practices?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>(4) Could that be a hypocritical
flip-flop, depending on whose ox is being gored?</span></span><br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial;"><strong>To subscribe to blog, submit e-mail address to "FOLLOW BY EMAIL" at top of page.</strong></span></div>
<br /><span style="font-family: Arial;"><strong>If you wish to comment, click "comments" below.</strong></span><br />Charles J. Morris,http://www.blogger.com/profile/01893087451435558969noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-195362782974793357.post-54426577065201519272012-03-22T15:39:00.000-07:002012-03-22T15:39:12.404-07:00<br />
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: center;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: Arial;"><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Arial;">NATIONAL LABOR POLICY: TRUTH
VS. REVISIONISM</span> </span></b></div>
<br />
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: Arial;"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">by Charles J. Morris </b><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Arial;">© 2012<o:p></o:p></span></b></span></div>
<br />
<div class="corr" style="margin: 6pt 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">As a prelude to the forthcoming pre-election debates about the
role of labor unions in the American economy, especially how that role is affected
by the <span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Arial;">National Labor Relations Board</span>
(NLRB or Board), the air needs to be cleared of critical misinformation propagated
by the management lobby and their anti-union allies in the Republican party. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>For the past several decades those groups have
contended, erroneously, that the 1947 Taft-Hartley Act changed the basic policy
of the <span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Arial;">National Labor Relations Act</span>
(NLRA or Act) from being pro-collective bargaining to one of neutrality between
union and non-union employees<span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial;">―</span>which it did not.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="corr" style="margin: 6pt 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">Although not generally recognized, the Act’s monolithic statutory
policy<span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial;">―</span>though not
its enforcement record<span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial;">―</span>has
at all times been to encourage union organizing and collective bargaining.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>That conclusion is an incontrovertible fact<span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial;">―</span>notwithstanding the management
lobby’s several unsuccessful attempts to change that policy by Congressional
amendment.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Those legislative failures,
however, were offset by widespread dissemination of false and revisionist
versions of the Act’s policy, which did succeed in changing the general perception
of that policy<span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial;">―</span>and hence
the conventional wisdom.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>As a result, most
labor-relations observers and participants now assume that the NLRB is required
to be rigorously neutral between labor and management and that the paramount
purpose of the Act is to provide employees with the freedom to select or not
select union representation, preferably through an election, and collective
bargaining is relegated to secondary status where its importance is conceded
only after employees have chosen to be represented by a union .<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Although the Board genuinely strives to maintain
strict neutrality in its adjudication of facts, the foregoing revisionist version
of the Act’s policy grossly distorts the true policy that Congress enacted and
intended. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Congress gave the Board a unified
policy-driven role which it spelled out in three separate statutory provisions,
the most recent one of which was enacted in 1959, twelve years after
Taft-Hartley.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It specifies that it is <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">“the responsibility of the Federal
Government [i.e., the NLRB] to protect </i><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Arial;">employees’ rights to organize, choose their
own representatives, bargain collectively, and otherwise engage in concerted
activities for their mutual aid or protection.” <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span></i><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Arial;">(This and all subsequent <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">italics</i>
in this blog have been added for emphasis.)<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span></span>The Act was deliberately designed to encourage employees to
exercise their latent economic power by protecting their right to act in
concert and to bargain collectively for their wages and other conditions of
employment.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The NLRB<span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial;">―</span>despite all the rhetoric
to the contrary<span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial;">―</span>is
a pro-collective bargainng statute, for <span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Arial;">collective
bargaining</span> is the official labor-relations policy of the United States.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Critics of the NLRB need to be reminded often
of this Congressional truth and challenged accordingly.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="corr" style="margin: 6pt 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">Illustrative of how one revisionist version of the Act’s policy
has been used<span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial;">―</span>or
more accurately misused<span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial;">―</span>
was that it was the rationale for several anti-union NLRB decisions issued
during the administration of President George W. Bush.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>For example, in the <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Dana Corporation</i> case, the Bush Board rationalized its reversal of the
long-established doctrine that allowed employers to voluntary grant union
recognition on the basis of demonstrated card-check majorities by asserting that
“free choice is, after all, the fundamental value protected by the Act.” <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="corr" style="margin: 6pt 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">Until the appearance of my recent article, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">How the National Labor Relations Act Was Stolen and How It Can Be
Recovered: Taft-Hartley Revisionism and the Appointment Process, </i>upon which
this blog is based, the common assertion that Taft-Hartley changed the policy
of the Act was never adequately challenged by a comparison with a full and
careful analysis of what the statutory text actually says and what the legislative
history actually reveals.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>That article, which
was briefly noted in my last posting, digs deeply into the Act’s purpose and
policy and the related issue of how Republican presidential administrations consistently
prevented the Board from fulfilling the policy that Congress intended by selecting
and confirming Board appointees whose backgrounds gave assurance that they
would not enforce the Act in accordance with that policy. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>What follows here is a mostly non-legalese description
of the part of that article that explains the Act’s true policy and exposes the
fallacies in the revisionist versions of that policy.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>For readers interested in a more detailed legal
analysis of this material and its pertinent history, with supporting authority,
I recommend the full article.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>(Here is
the link to its early version : </span><a href="http://charlesjmorris.blogspot.com/"><span style="color: blue; font-family: Arial;">http://charlesjmorris.blogspot.com</span></a><span style="font-family: Arial;">
; the final printed version in the <span style="font-variant: small-caps;">Berkeley
Journal of Employment and Labor Law</span> will be available shortly.)<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: Arial;">The Words of the
Statute:<o:p></o:p></span></b></div>
<br />
<div class="corr" style="margin: 6pt 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">The true policy of the NLRA can be found in the words of the
statute and also in the legislative history that supports and explains those
words.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But as lawyers and judges
commonly recognize, proof in statutory law, as in pudding, is in the eating,
i.e., in the reading, not in the making.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>So we start with the text of the Act.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="corr" style="margin: 6pt 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">Before beginning that reading, however, I want to explain why the
Republican-controlled Taft-Hartley Congress was willing to retain all of the
Wagner Act’s policy favoring union organizing and collective bargaining, as
well as its key protective provisions.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>The reason was simply that this was the price the sponsors <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>had to pay to achieve passage of a bill that required
approval from at least two-thirds of the members of both Houses of Congress in
order to override President Truman’s anticipated veto, which did occur.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>As a result, although that Act was intended
to reduce union economic power in the collective-bargaining process<span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial;">―</span>which it accomplished<span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial;">―</span>it also retained
collective bargaining as the nation’s preferred means for determining employee
wages and working conditions.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="corr" style="margin: 6pt 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">Taft-Hartley thus drastically curtailed the economic power of
unions in the collective-bargaining process, and it also overly complicated the
Labor Board’s administrative procedures; nevertheless, it carefully preserved all
of the Wagner Act’s substantive provisions protective of the right of employees
to unionize and engage in collective bargaining and also its clear statement of
policy to that effect, even adding new statutory language that reasserted that
policy. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The latter Taft-Hartley benefits
have not been sufficiently recognized.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="corr" style="margin: 6pt 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">We turn now to the statutory text that defines the Act’s policy.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The key provision is contained in the
introductory Section 1, which defines that policy with its original 1935 language.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Note especially the <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">italicized</i> phrases:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="quote1" style="margin: 0in 0.5in 1em;">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">It is hereby declared to be <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">the
policy of the United States</i> to eliminate the causes of certain substantial
obstructions to the free flow of commerce and to mitigate and eliminate these
obstructions when they have occurred by <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">encouraging
the practice and procedure of collective bargaining and by protecting the
exercise by workers of full freedom of association, self-organization, and
designation of representatives of their own choosing, for the purpose of
negotiating the terms and conditions of their employment or other mutual aid or
protection</i>.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="corr" style="margin: 6pt 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">That text should now be compared with the text of Section 7
quoted below, which<span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial;">―</span>for
a reason that I shall explain later<span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial;">―</span>received the <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">italicized</i>
part as a minor amendment in the Taft-Hartley Act.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This amendment is the weak link on which the
anti-union revisionists have based their assertion of a major change in the
policy of the Act, such as in their frequent contention that <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">free choice is the fundamental value
protected by the Act.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></i>Here is the
full text of Section 7, with the Taft-Hartley addition <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">italicized</i>:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="quote1" style="margin: 0in 0.5in 1em;">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">Employees shall have the right to self-organization, to form,
join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through
representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted
activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or
protection, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">and shall also have the right
to refrain from any or all of such activities except to the extent that such
right may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor
organization as a condition of employment as authorized in section 8(a)(3).<o:p></o:p></i></span></div>
<br />
<div class="corr" style="margin: 6pt 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">Comparison of these two provisions reveals that the policy
declaration in Section 1 paraphrases all of the rights spelled out in the
original language of Section 7 but conspicuously omits any reference to the
Taft-Hartley’s “right to refrain” additional language, notwithstanding that this
Section 1 declaration was reenacted twice, once in the Taft-Hartley Act in 1947
and again in the Landrum-Griffin Act in 1959.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>It is thus<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>evident from those
repeated omissions, as well as from legislative history to be noted below, that
Congress was carefully avoiding allowing the “right to refrain” from union
activity to be a part of the Act’s basic policy, which continued to be the encouragement
of union and concerted activity and collective bargaining, with no reference to
individual or non-union bargaining or no bargaining.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="corr" style="margin: 6pt 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">To further reinforce the monolithic nature of the Section 1
declaration, those same later Congresses enacted separate and additional policy
declarations<span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial;">―the </span>key
phrases of which are <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">italicized</i> below<span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial;">―thus</span> further reconfirming
the undiluted nature of the Wagner Act policy.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>The additional declaration in the 1947 Taft-Hartley Act (29 U.S.C. <span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Arial;">§</span> 271(a))<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Arial;">states
in pertinent part <o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<br />
<div class="corr" style="margin: 6pt 0in;">
<span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Arial;"><span style="font-family: Arial;">That it is <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">the policy of the United States</i> that—<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<br />
<div class="quote1" style="margin: 0in 0.5in 1em;">
<span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Arial;"><span style="font-family: Arial;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>(a) sound and stable industrial
peace and the advancement of the general welfare, health, and safety of the
Nation and of <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">the best interests of
employers and employees </i>can most satisfactorily be secured by the
settlement of issues between employers and employees <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">through the process of conference and collective bargaining</i> between
employers and the representatives of their employees.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<br />
<div class="corr" style="margin: 6pt 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">The additional previously noted declaration in the 1959 Landrum-Griffin
Act (29 U.S.C. <span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Arial;">§</span> 401(a) reads
in pertinent part as follows:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="quote1" style="margin: 0in 0.5in 1em;">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">Congress finds that, in the public interest, it continues to be
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">the responsibility of the Federal
Government</i> to protect employees’ rights to organize, choose their own
representatives, bargain collectively, and otherwise engage in concerted
activities for their mutual aid or protection....<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="corr" style="margin: 6pt 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">All of the above statutory language should suffice to demonstrate
the singularity of the Act’s policy.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Yet, because anti-union spokespersons have so persistently pointed to
the presence of the “right to refrain” language in Section 7 to support their
policy contentions, further scrutiny of that part of the statute is in order.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="corr" style="margin: 6pt 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">As attorneys and others dealing with the NLRA are well aware, and
as the structure of the Actreveals, Section 7 is not a self-enforcing
provision.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It is only a repository<span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial;">―</span>but an exceedingly
important one<span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial;">―</span>of<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>basic rights under the Act, rights that are
enforceable only through the unfair labor practice (ULP) provisions in Section
8 and the enforcement procedures in Section 10.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Because of differences in their key words, which are italicized below, two
of those ULP provisions are of major importance to the meaning of Section 7’s
“right to refrain.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Sections 8(a)(1),
which is applicable to employer conduct, provides that <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="quote1" style="margin: 0in 0.5in 1em;">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">It shall be an unfair labor practice for an employer...<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">to interfere with, restrain, or coerce </i>employees
in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in section 7.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="flushparagraph" style="margin: 6pt 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">Section<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>8(b)(1)(A), which is applicable to union conduct, provides that<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="quote1" style="margin: 0in 0.5in 1em;">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">It shall be an unfair labor practice for a labor organization
or its agents...to <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">restrain or coerce</i>...employees
in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in section 7.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="corr" style="margin: 6pt 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">It is evident, by comparison, that the only union conduct
prohibited by Section 7’s protection of the right of employees <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">to refrain</i> from engaging in union and
other concerted activity is conduct that <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">restrains</i>
or <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">coerces</i>, i.e., active conduct that
actually inhibits or prevents employees from exercising their right to refrain,
for to be unlawful, the union’s targeted conduct must <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">restrain</i> or <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">coerce</i>, not
merely <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">interfere</i>.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This is decidedly unlike the broader restriction
applicable to employers under Section 8(a)(1), which prohibits <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">interference, </i>as well as <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">restraint</i> and <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">coercion, </i>of employees who engage in union and other protected concerted
activity under Section 7.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="corr" style="margin: 6pt 0in;">
<span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Arial;"><span style="font-family: Arial;">Accordingly, the
“refrain” language in Section 7 is simply the text that triggers Section
8(b)(1)(A) enforcement—just as the union-organizing and collective-bargaining
text in Section 7 triggers Section 8(a)(1) enforcement.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>That was all that Congress meant by the
inclusion of the “refrain” language in Section 7, and—as we shall see—that
conclusion is confirmed both by legislative history and by the Supreme Court’s subsequent
construction of that text.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The fact that
Section 7 is not independently enforceable is thus dispositive of the limited
purpose that Congress intended for this statutory recognition of the right of
employees “to refrain” from engaging in concerted activity. <o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<br />
<div class="corr" style="margin: 6pt 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">Despite the fact that anti-union revisionists have largely
succeeded in convincing the interested public to believe otherwise, the only
conclusion that can legitimately be drawn from all of the above statutory text
is that the sole policy of the Act is Section 1’s encouragement of <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="quote1" style="margin: 0in 0.5in 1em;">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">collective bargaining and protecting the exercise by workers of
full freedom of association, self-organization, and designation of
representatives of their own choosing, for the purpose of negotiating the terms
and conditions of their employment or other mutual aid or protection.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="flushparagraph" style="margin: 6pt 0in 6pt 1in; text-indent: -1in;">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">That statutory
policy is reinforced by its legislative history.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: Arial;">Legislative History:<o:p></o:p></span></b></div>
<br />
<div class="corr" style="margin: 6pt 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">Between 1935 and 1947 union membership in the United States grew
from three to fifteen million, and when Taft-Hartley was being considered as
many as twenty million workers may have been covered by exclusive collective
bargaining contracts. Some industries, including coal mining, steel, auto,
construction, railroads, and trucking, had become almost totally
unionized.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The resulting surge in
collective bargaining, with its accompanying increases in wages and other
benefits, produced in the long term a stronger middle class and a narrowing of
income disparity among income earners, but in the short term it produced a wave
of strikes that shut down many steel mills, auto plants, seaports, and large
sections of other industries, all of which generated strong opposition among
much of the public.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>As a
consequence,<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>following World War II there
was considerable popular criticism of union power and a widely held belief that
the NLRB had become one-sided and even influenced by Communists within the
agency.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>These were the principal
factors that led to passage of the Taft-Hartley Act by the Republican dominated
80<sup>th</sup> Congress.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="corr" style="margin: 6pt 0in;">
<span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Arial;"><span style="font-family: Arial;">The Act that emerged was
primarily a union regulatory statute, not anything else.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>All of Taft-Hartley’s substantive law changes
were regulatory of unions and union conduct.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>The other changes, though numerous and important, were essentially changes
in procedural and remedial law.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The
basic union-organizing and collective-bargaining provisions, as well as the
declared policy of the Act, remained unchanged.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<br />
<div class="corr" style="margin: 6pt 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">Thus, at a time when the American labor movement was widespread
and strong, Taft-Hartley succeeded in weakening the unions’ economic power within
the collective-bargaining system<span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial;">―</span>especially by outlawing secondary boycotts and eliminating
the closed shop<span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial;">―</span>but
without making any structural changes to that system.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>As Senator Robert A. Taft, <span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Arial;">t</span>he Act’s chief sponsor, explained in
a radio address following President Truman’s veto, the intent of the legislation
was “to restore equality in collective bargaining,” <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>for, as he had explained on the floor of the
Senate, the aim was “to get back to the point where, when an employer meets
with his employees, they have substantially equal bargaining power….If there is
reasonable equality at the bargaining table, I believe that there is much more
hope for labor peace.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>He emphasized
that the bill was “based on the theory of the Wagner Act…on the theory that <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">the solution of the labor problem in the
United States is free, collective bargaining</i>.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="corr" style="margin: 6pt 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">The Hartley bill that passed in the House was a harsh anti-union measure
that contained many elements inconsistent with the collective-bargaining
process.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>On the other hand, the Taft
bill in the Senate<span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial;">―</span>which
emerged, with only a few exceptions, as the bill that finally became the law<span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial;">―</span>was mild by comparison.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="corr" style="margin: 6pt 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">Despite the restrictions on union conduct contained in the Senate
bill, from the beginning the Senate version expressly retained the concept of
collective bargaining as the key focus of the Act.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Had that not been so, it is unlikely that
moderates in the Senate, such as Republican Irving Ives of New York, would have
approved of its passage.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In fact,
Senator Ives, who had been the founding dean of the New York School of
Industrial and Labor Relations at Cornell University and a long-time supporter
of collective bargaining, was an active backer and one of the architects of the
Taft bill.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It is especially significant
that it was Senator Ives’ amendment that removed from the bill the phrase
“interfere with” in Section 8(b)(1)<span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial;">―</span>the union unfair-labor-practice provision noted above that
was meant to be the counterpart to Section 8(a)(1), the employer
unfair-labor-practice provision.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Ives
told his fellow senators that prohibiting unions from “interfering with”
employee rights “may later, by interpretation and effect, defeat legitimate
attempts at labor organization.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>His
colleagues agreed, and his amendment to delete that phrase was adopted without
objection.</span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";"> <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="corr" style="margin: 6pt 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">The collective-bargaining policy of the Act was further
underscored by the Senate subcommittee’s report on the Taft bill, which stated
that the “bill is predicated upon our belief that a fair and equitable labor
policy can best be achieved by equalizing laws in a manner that will <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">encourage free collective<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"> </b>bargaining.</i>”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The bill that passed the Senate made no
changes in any of the foregoing provisions.</span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";">
<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Arial;"><span style="font-family: Arial;">In contrast, the House bill, which contained many provisions adverse to
unionization and collective bargaining, passed the House without any changes.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<br />
<div class="corr" style="margin: 6pt 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">When the conflicting bills were sent to conference committee, the
House’s approach was totally rejected.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Senator Ives was one of the Senate’s conference committee managers who
succeeded in convincing a majority of the House conference managers to accept
almost all of the provisions of the Senate bill, including the verbatim
reenactment of the Wagner Act’s core provisions and its “Findings and Policies”
(except for three innocuous revisions in the Findings).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The bill that emerged from conference was
thus essentially the Senate bill with only a few additions, none of which
affected the core provisions of the Wagner Act or its findings and declaration
of policy.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="corr" style="margin: 6pt 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">The Senate’s victory was grudgingly recognized by proponents of
the House bill—but very unhappily.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>For
instance, Representative C. E.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Hoffman,
who had been one of the House conference committee managers, was so
disappointed with the resulting bill that he declined signing the House’s
conference committee report and during the brief debate that followed remarked
“I do not like the bill….this was the gift of the Congress to the unions and
the union leaders.” Nevertheless, he and other disappointed House members voted
for the bill and also the motion to override the President’s veto.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Their disappointment thus underscored that
Taft-Hartley did not change the core policy of the Act.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="corr" style="margin: 6pt 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">Although the bill that was finally enacted <span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Arial;">was tilted in numerous ways to favor
employers, in order to achieve its passage with sufficient support among
members of both houses of Congress and, as previously noted, to avoid a
presidential veto and when a veto was deemed likely to have the votes to
override it, the final bill enacted over President Truman’s veto made it
absolutely clear that the policy of the Act would continue to be the
encouragement of union organizing and collective bargaining.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<br />
<div class="corr" style="margin: 6pt 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Arial;"><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Arial;">So much for the
legislative history of the declared policy.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>But what does that history tell us about the phrase in Section 7 that
gives employees the right “to refrain” from engaging in union and other
concerted activity?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span>To the
Taft-Hartley Congress, that was not even deemed a change in the law, and it
certainly was not intended to affect the Act’s underlying purpose.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Congress carefully and deliberately subordinated
this <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">minor</i> right-to-refrain to the <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">major</i> right-to-organize and engage in
collective bargaining, for unions at that time were recognized as a natural and
accepted participant in labor-management relations.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In fact, the “refrain” addition to Section 7
was not viewed as an important amendment and was never the subject of any floor
discussion in either the House or the Senate.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>That legislative silence is obviously why the revisionists have never
found any quotations from members of either the House or the Senate to support
their fictitious contention that this minor amendment changed the Act’s basic
policy.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="corr" style="margin: 6pt 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">There was, however, considerable Congressional debate about the
initial language in Section 8(b)(1), which, as we have seen, was corrected by Senator
Ives’s amendment that removed the broad phrase “interfere with” from the
narrower phrase “restrain or coerce,” which remained in the bill.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>That deletion represented further
confirmation that Congress was careful to avoid prohibiting conduct that encouraged
union membership or activity or collective bargaining.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Section 7 and the amended Section 8(b)(1)(A) thus
outlawed only harsh union conduct that directly <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">restrained</i> or <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">coerced</i> employees,
and those provisions were to be activated only by the filing of specific
unfair-labor-practice charges<span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial;">―</span>unlike what happened in the previously noted<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"> Dana Corporation </i>case, where no
violation of Section 8(b)(1)(A) was even alleged.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Means</i>
and not <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">ends</i> were the only intended targets
of the “right to refrain,” for with “<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">interfere
with</i>” deleted from Section 8(b)(1)(A), <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>its enforcement was to be confined to the rare
instances of restraint or coercion.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>That
conclusion is supported by the Congressional debate on the Ives amendment and
its adoption where, as the reader will recall, Senator Ives stressed the need to
employ language that could not to be used to fashion rules or decisions that
“may later, by interpretation and effect, defeat legitimate attempts at labor
organization,” and also by the Supreme Court’s construction of those provisions
in the <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Curtis Brothers</i> case, which is
noted below.</span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";"> <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="corr" style="margin: 6pt 0in;">
<span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Arial;"><span style="font-family: Arial;">Senator Taft made it explicitly
clear that this was the limited purpose intended by the “right to refrain” text
in Section 7, for in his explanation as to why that amendment was added he stated
that :<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<br />
<div class="quote1" style="margin: 0in 0.5in 1em;">
<span style="font-family: Arial;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">The new language...
merely makes mandatory an interpretation which the Board itself had already
arrived at administratively.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></i>The
reason for its inclusion was that similar language had appeared in the House
bill and since section 8(b)(1) of the Senate bill, which was retained by the
conference, made it an unfair labor practice for labor organizations to <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">restrain</i> or <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">coerce</i> employees in the rights guaranteed them in section 7, the
House conferees insisted that there be express language in section 7 which
would make the prohibition contained in section 8(b)(1) apply to<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"> coercive acts of unions against employees
who did not wish to join or did not care to participate in a strike or a picket
line. </i>(<span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Arial;">Emphasis added</span>.)<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="corr" style="margin: 6pt 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">Legislative history is therefore <span style="mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;">unambiguous as to the limits of
what was intended by the addition of the “right to refrain” languag</span>e.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Senator Taft’s statement that it was intended
to protect employees from such conduct as “coercive acts of unions against
employees who did not wish to join or did not care to participate in a strike
or a picket line” confirms its narrow scope, which the Supreme Court later reconfirmed
in <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Curtis Brothers </i>with its approval
of<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"> </i>the Board’s interpretation in a
1948 decision that<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<br />
<div class="quote1" style="margin: 0in 0.5in 1em;">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">By <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Section 8(b)(1)(A),</i>
Congress sought to fix the rules of the game, to insure that strikes and other
organizational activities of employees were conducted peaceably by persuasion
and propaganda and not by physical force, or threats of force, or of economic
reprisal.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In that Section, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Congress was aiming at means, not at ends</i>.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="corr" style="margin: 6pt 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">The reader will also recall the conspicuous absence of “right to
refrain” language in all three of the Act’s declarations of statutory policy.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Those omissions were not inadvertent, for the
legislative record shows that the Senate-House conference committee
deliberately excluded any reference to that “right to refrain” from the main policy
declaration in Section 1, and the omissions from the separate policy
declarations in the Taft-Hartley and Landrum-Griffin Acts silently tell the
same story.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Those omissions are
significant because, as we have seen, the language in Section 1 that describes
the Act’s policy favoring union organizing and collective bargaining represents
a complete paraphrasing of <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">all</i> the
original Section 7 rights—even including the generic “other mutual aid or
protection” objective.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>However, when the
Taft-Hartley Congress added the “right to refrain” to Section 7 it chose not to
add that feature to the <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">policy</i><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"> </b>description in Section 1.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This was not an oversight, for the conference
committee—which deliberated for two full weeks—did add, immediately preceding
the Wagner-Act policy declaration in Section 1, an entirely new paragraph taken
from the Senate bill that asserted in its key part that “certain practices by
some labor organizations, their officers, and members have the intent or the
necessary effect of impairing the public’s interest in the free flow of
commerce.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Thus, had Congress—or more
specifically the conference committee—intended to equate the “right to refrain”
with the core policy of union-organizing and collective-bargaining, it would surely
have done so with the simple addition of the “refrain” text when it inserted
the foregoing union-impairment paragraph immediately before the paragraph
containing the declaration of policy.</span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";">
<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: Arial;">Conclusion:<o:p></o:p></span></b></div>
<br />
<div class="corr" style="margin: 6pt 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">Accordingly, with the withdrawal of the underpinning phrase of “<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">interfere with”</i> from Section 8(b)(1)(A)
and the omission of the “right to refrain” from all of the statutory
declarations of policy, the revisionists’ house-of-cards falls like the Queen’s
cards in <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Alice in Wonderland. </i><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Unambiguous text and consistent legislative
history leave no doubt that the “right to refrain” from union activity has no
force or effect beyond its limited protection against restraint or coercion, thus
refuting the revisionists’ claims that it changed the policy of the Act.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="flushparagraph" style="margin: 6pt 0in;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="flushparagraph" style="margin: 6pt 0in;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="flushparagraph" style="margin: 6pt 0in;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="flushparagraph" style="margin: 6pt 0in;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="flushparagraph" style="margin: 6pt 0in;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="flushparagraph" style="margin: 6pt 0in;">
<br /></div>Charles J. Morris,http://www.blogger.com/profile/01893087451435558969noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-195362782974793357.post-64833973197098973812012-02-25T17:09:00.000-08:002012-02-26T13:44:57.239-08:00The Forgotten Role of Unions<div class="articleparagraph" style="margin: 6pt 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">In this heated political season<span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial;">―</span>heated before the real action even begins<span style="color: black; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial;">―</span>the public needs to be reminded of some little-remembered truths about the role of unions in America.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And attention needs to be focused on the persistent tendency of Republicans to demonize unions. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Our memory of the importance of a strong labor movement needs refreshing.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>As my generation well remembers, when unions were strong several decades ago the American middle class was the envy of the world.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The economic progress that unions produced through collective bargaining represented an important feature of a free enterprise system that was spreading the wealth with a minimum of governmental participation.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If employees are again allowed to achieve substantial union representation without employer interference, that is the direction toward which this country can again be moving.</span></div>
<div class="articleparagraph" style="margin: 6pt 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">Despite their rhetoric, anti-union employers are not interested in workers exercising free choice in choosing or not choosing union representation.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>They are proving that once again, at this very moment, with three pending federal court lawsuits which they filed against the <span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Arial;">National Labor Relations Board in order to prevent<span style="color: black;"> </span></span>employees from learning of their rights in the workplace about how to be represented or not represented by a union and how to protect themselves when their employer “interferes with, restrains, or coerces” them in the exercise of those rights.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Obviously, non-union employers are afraid to allow their workers to learn about their rights, fearing that some might actually exercise them.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Through those law suits and two bills in Congress, major anti-union employer organizations, including the National Association of Manufacturers, the U. S. Chamber of Commerce, and the National Right to Work Foundation, with the assistance of some Tea Party members of Congress, are thus now conducting an expensive and intensive campaign to avoid having to post workplace notices advising employees of their rights under the <span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Arial;">National Labor Relations Act.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Such an effort by private parties to suppress official speech should be deemed shameful in a free democracy.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It is also noteworthy--but sad--that the general media have virtually ignored these happenings.</span></span></div>
<div class="articleparagraph" style="margin: 6pt 0in;">
<span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Arial;"><span style="font-family: Arial;">I close this brief message with a reminder that we should not forget what most Americans today never knew, that the right to organize in unions and engage in collective bargaining<span style="color: black;">―</span>but not the right to refrain from such activity<span style="color: black;">―</span>is the official “policy of the United States” expressly spelled out in the law by Congress. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Despite several unsuccessful efforts by non-union employers and their Republican allies to change that policy, this is still the national labor policy.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Although they were unable to legally change the policy, they did succeed however, through a sustained program of historical revisionism, in creating a false conventional wisdom that denies that policy. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It is time for the truth to prevail, for this important legal issue has the capacity to contribute to the regrowth of a strong middle class, which certainly needs to be understood in this election season.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>My latest article, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">How the National Labor Relations Act was Stolen and how it can be Recovered: Taft-Hartley Revisionism and the NLRB Appointment Process</i>, which will soon be published by a University of California at Berkeley law journal, fully documents the history and law showing the current applicability of this national labor policy.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I shall have more to say on this subject in future blogs.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I also want to advise that I have a personal involvement in the matter of the above NLRB notices, about which I shall provide further information at a later date.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span></span></div>Charles J. Morris,http://www.blogger.com/profile/01893087451435558969noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-195362782974793357.post-38535629460766149902012-02-24T17:35:00.002-08:002012-02-24T17:37:15.025-08:00Welcome!Welcome to my new blog. I shall be commenting here on current issues involving labor relations and labor law. I shall especially comment on matters affecting the National Labor Relations Board.<br />
<br />
My most recent article on this topic is <i>How the National Labor Relations Act Was Stolen and How It Can be Recovered: Taft-Hartley Revisionism and the NLRB Appointment Process,</i> which will shortly appear in the Berkeley Journal of Employment and Labor Law. An earlier version is online at <a href="http://ssrn.com/abstract=1948269">http://ssrn.com/abstract=1948269</a>Charles J. Morris,http://www.blogger.com/profile/01893087451435558969noreply@blogger.com0