DOCSLIB.ORG

The Historical Bacegroukd of the Hatiohal Labor

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Historical Bacegroukd of the Hatiohal Labor The historical background of the National Labor Relations Act of July 5, 1935 Item Type text; Thesis-Reproduction (electronic) Authors Kelley, Edward Francis, 1911- Publisher The University of Arizona. Rights Copyright © is held by the author. Digital access to this material is made possible by the University Libraries, University of Arizona. Further transmission, reproduction or presentation (such as public display or performance) of protected items is prohibited except with permission of the author. Download date 08/10/2021 17:39:19 Link to Item http://hdl.handle.net/10150/553432 THE HISTORICAL BACEGROUKD OF THE HATIOHAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT OF JULY 6, i m B by Edward F* Kolley A Theoio mibmittod to tho faculty ef the Department of Hiotory and Pelitieal Science In pert lei falflllaent of the requirements for the degree of tester ef Arte In tho Graduate Collogo IMwreity of Arizona 1959 Approved$ i* 4? o* £ 9 7 9 / / 9 3 9 £ S ~ C ^ Q . Z COHTEMTS I* INTRODUCTION ..................................... 2 II. THE CONTRIBUTIONS OP THE WORLD WAR PERIOD TO THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT ...... 8 III. THE INFLUENCE OF RAILROAD LABOR ACTIVITIES IN THE FORMULATION OP THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT .... ................... 45 IV. THE CONTRIBUTIONS OF THE NATIONAL RECOVERY ADMINISTRATION TO THE FORMATION OP THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT........ 153 V. AN ANALYSIS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT ................ 190 BI B I J O G R A m r ................................ .. 201 J2 3 6 2 3 THE mSTOBICAL BACKGROUND Op Tfflg StTIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT OF JULY 8, 1986. CHAPTER I imODUCTIO* The national Labor Relations Act of July 5, 19S81 in spite of . - ■ ' » ' ' ■ four years of observation, analysis, and operation, continues to bo regarded by many as n revolutionary, impractical, and illogical pioco of legislation., Due to a lack of proper education and publicity in regard to the provisions of tho Act, a largo portion of the Amorloam public lacks a true and accurate understanding of this labor disputes legislation. Although it is unfortunate that a comprehensive analysis of tho background of the Act has not been previously prepared, yet this assignment remains of utmost importance since the 1935 labor measure or some similar pioco of legislation will continue to be a matter of considerable import in American industry. If it can be shown that each provision of tho Act vraa tho result of decades of ex­ periences and experiments in the relations between employer and em­ ployee, if it can bo demonstrated that tho policies of the Act had proven to be workable and helpful in tho railroad industry, and if it can be appreciated that tho practicability and advisability of the Aot had boon uphold by industrialists, labor loaders, and government officials, then a more accurate and valid understanding of the legis­ lation may be secured* 1 1. 49 State L. 449, 1 The purpose of this study is therefore to point out that the national Labor Eolations Act of July 5, 1935 was not a sudden legis­ lative bolt but instead tho cumulative result of years of experiments, experiences, hostilities, and legislative enactments. July 6, 1955, did not mark tho beginning of a now period in labor history but in­ stead merely dated another chapter in tho steady formation of an American labor policy* Professor Sumner II. SlieMer, In discus sing the 1935 Act, stated that ”tho Eoosovelt Administration is broadening, defining more precisely, and supplementing more effectively a policy which began under Wilson and which developed slowly under Coolidge and Hoover."^ Seemingly tho most effective arguments for tho soundness of this study are to bo found in tho Congressional oommitteo hearings and re­ ports in regard to tho 1934 and 1935 proposals for labor relations legislation.5 In tho report of the Senate Committee on Education and labor accompanying S. 2926,4 tho statement is made that tho "substan­ ce Sumner H. Sliohter, * Labor and the Government,” Tho Yale Review, Vol. XXV (December,1935), p. 250. S« On Parch; 1, 1934, Senator Robert Wagner introduced S. 2926, a bill "to equalize tho bargaining power of employers and employees, to encourage tho amicable settlement of disputes between* employers and emplcyoos, to oroato a Rational Labor Board, and for other purposes." This proposal was sidetracked in favor of Public Reso­ lution Mo, 44 of Juno 19, 1934. On February 21, 1935, Senator Labor Relations Act. of July 5, 1955. 4. Roport ]*£• H84 to Accompany S. 2926, Comadttoo on Education and Labor, UTS. Senate, lid Cong., 2nd boss., p. 8. This bill tainod the same basio principles as the 1935 proposal. 4 W e features of tho bill are not new, but merely codify and clarify the policy already declared by Congress in different fields of industry, trade and transportation.” In substantiating this decla­ ration, references are made to such legislation as tho Railway labor Act of 1926, tho Korrlo-La Guardia Act of 1952, tho Bankruptcy Act of 1953, the Emergency Transportation Act of 1935, and tho national Industrial Recovery Act of 1933.5 The report continues by stating that "not only tho substantive features of this bill are familiar, but tho procedural features are well known and tested." Here roforonces are made to the United States Board of Mediation, the Rational War Labor Board, and to the Rational Labor Board under the Rational Recovery Administration.6 It was "from this wealth of precedent that the features of the present bill have been drawn."7 The Congressional hearings in 1935 on the bill which eventually became tho Rational Labor Relations Act reveal the same dependence on previous labor legislation and experiences. The sponsor of the legislation. Senator Robert P. Wagner, of Row York, in explaining the unfair labor practicos listed in the measure, stated that tho language employed followed "practically verbatim" the provisions of the Rail- 5. See infra, pp. 114, 137, 124, 125, 138 for a discussion of these Acts. 6. See infra, pp. 119, 21, 350 for a discussion of these agencies. T* Report Ho. 1184 to -Accompany S. 2926, op. oit., p. IS, 6 •cray Labor Act of 1926, tho Horris-La Guardia Act of 1932, ruptey Act of 1933, 8 tho National Industrial Eooovery Act of 1933, President Y/iIlian F, Groon of the J stressed tho fact that the bill should not be regarded as legislation” but instead as tho result of long-tine planning, legislation is by no . * IB to tho applicability of tho experiences of the railroad industry, Dr. William M. Loisorson, Chairman of the National radiation Board, as followsx T, tiuuujuu v.w havo this effort industries, trying to diooovor America all over again. vront through SO years ago? V,hy not begin -with our wisdom which vm learned from bitter experience, to corns whore m are now on the Railway Labor Act, and adopt that policy for other interstate industries. The arguments for this, it to me, is wo are taking Congress* own policy, upheld by the courts, giving tho reason for upholding it, but you need to maintain peace, and you cannot interfere with, the constitu­ tional rights of employees to associate themselves. This • Mi l policy to tho It seems to me it is just a sense to adopt the policy that has been fc ry as * result of experience and is embodied in this bill.1 6. Hearings before the Committee on Education and labor 1958, S. Senate, 7 4 W C o n g . , 1st Ifeas., Pfc. 1, p. % , " # IMA,, p, 108. io.ma., Pt. s, p. gas. 6 With tho passage of the national Labor Relations Act, Congress did follovr the philosophy and principles of earlier measures and experiences* Therefore, it is clear that if a proper understanding of the Act is to bo obtained, tho first requisite is a knovrlodgo of tho legislation and experiences on which tho acasuro is based* It is through this procedure alone that tho provisions of the Act, the intentions of Congress, and the interpretations of the National Labor Relations Board can be fully comprehended. Such is tho pur­ pose of this study. In preparing this thesis it was found that there wore throe principal sources to which tho majority of the provisions of tho National Labor Relations Act oould be traced. Those wore the ex­ periences of tho World War period, tho legislation and activities in the railroad industry, and, thirdly, the policies and principles evolved by the Labor Boards under tho National Recovery Adminis­ tration. Each sphora of activity is considered, in detail in a separate chapter with a general coordination of the material in the final chapter in which the provisions of the Act itself are analyzed as tho products of these oarllor developments. In concluding this introductory chapter it is advisable to ox- plain the procedure used in the succeeding three chapters. This study is not a general history of labor problems but instead an examination of the sources of the provisions of the National Labor Relations Act of 1935. This Act does not regulate hours of labor, J wages, or working conditions. It merely attempts to aid in the T ostabliohiRonti and strengthening of collective bargaining botmaon the representatives of employer and employee as a means of preventing and settling industrial controversies. As shall bo noted in tho concluding chapter, the Act provides that certain practices on tho part of the employer nhich prevent or interfere with collective bargaining are to be considered invalid. In substance, the 1936 legislation is simply anottor program in tho movement to decrease the number of costly strikes and disturbances and indirectly to im­ prove the status of tho industrial worker, Thoroforo, the tracing \ ■ ' ■.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The 1926 Railway Labor Act and the Modern American Airline Industry: Changes and Chaos Outline the Need for Revised Legislation Lisa Catherine Tulk
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Southern Methodist University Journal of Air Law and Commerce Volume 69 | Issue 3 Article 8 2004 The 1926 Railway Labor Act and the Modern American Airline Industry: Changes and Chaos Outline the Need for Revised Legislation Lisa Catherine Tulk Follow this and additional works at: https://scholar.smu.edu/jalc Recommended Citation Lisa Catherine Tulk, The 1926 Railway Labor Act and the Modern American Airline Industry: Changes and Chaos Outline the Need for Revised Legislation, 69 J. Air L. & Com. 615 (2004) https://scholar.smu.edu/jalc/vol69/iss3/8 This Comment is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at SMU Scholar. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of Air Law and Commerce by an authorized administrator of SMU Scholar. For more information, please visit http://digitalrepository.smu.edu. THE 1926 RAILWAY LABOR ACT AND THE MODERN AMERICAN AIRLINE INDUSTRY: CHANGES AND "CHAOS" OUTLINE THE NEED FOR REVISED LEGISLATION LISA CATHERINE TULK I. INTRODUCTION T HE RAILWAY LABOR Act ("the RLA")I has governed labor in the airline industry since the industry's infancy, and is tailored to unique aspects of the transportation system in the United States. The RLA recognizes that the transportation in- dustry is vital to commerce and that interruptions in the opera- tions of the industry due to labor disputes can paralyze American commerce until such disputes, which may be relatively minor, are resolved. The airline industry has dramatically changed since the RLA was adopted.
    [Show full text]
  • Federal Labor Relations Statutes: an Overview
    Federal Labor Relations Statutes: An Overview Alexandra Hegji Analyst in Social Policy November 26, 2012 Congressional Research Service 7-5700 www.crs.gov R42526 CRS Report for Congress Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress Federal Labor Relations Statutes: An Overview Summary Since 1926, Congress has enacted three major laws that govern labor-management relations for private sector and federal employees. An issue for Congress is the effect of these laws on employers, workers, and the nation’s economy. The Bureau of Labor Statistics estimates that, nationwide, 14.8 million employees are union members. In the 112th Congress alone, more than 30 bills were introduced to amend federal labor relations statutes. The proposals ranged from making union recognition without a secret ballot election illegal to further modifying runoff election procedures. These legislative activities, and the significant number of employees affected by federal labor relations laws, illustrate the current relevance of labor relations issues to legislators and their constituents. The three major labor relations statutes in the United States are the Railway Labor Act, the National Labor Relations Act, and the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute. Each law governs a distinct population of the U.S. workforce. The Railway Labor Act (RLA) was enacted in 1926, and its coverage extends to railway and airline carriers, unions, and employees of the carriers. The RLA guarantees employees the right to organize and collectively bargain with their employers over conditions of work and protects them against unfair employer and union practices. It lays out specific procedures for selecting employee representatives and provides a dispute resolution system that aims to efficiently resolve labor disputes between parties, with an emphasis on mediation and arbitration.
    [Show full text]
  • Narrow Gauge Politics: Railway Labor, Parties, Race, and the State
    Narrow Gauge Politics: Railway Labor, Parties, Race, and the State Daniel Schlozman Assistant Professor Department of Political Science Johns Hopkins University 3400 N. Charles Street Baltimore, MD 21218 (410) 516-5882 [email protected] 1 Workers in the American railroad and air transport industries still belong to unions.1 Fully 65.2 percent of workers in the railroad industry held union membership in 2014; in air transport, the figure was 40.5 percent. Union density is higher among railroad workers than among postal workers or than among public workers in every state but two. A distinct legal regime – a “state within a state”2 – developed to protect white railroaders, and withstood the assaults that have devastated American labor. While workers in the rest of the private sector organize under the National Labor Relations Act, the Railway Labor Act governs labor relations on the railroads and the airlines. Its consensual subgovernment among railroads, white unions, and the state has proven remarkably stable. But that labor-relations regime achieved stability precisely by avoiding large-scale ideological conflict. Rather, at the roots of stability lie political quiescence and racial intransigence in the critical New Deal and Fair Deal era. This paper situates the case of railway labor, comparing rail unions both across time and with other American labor regimes. At the end of the nineteenth century, the state repressed worker militancy (including from railroad workers) in the North and, by the extreme means of Jim Crow, in the
    [Show full text]
  • Major Disputes Under the Railway Labor Act A
    Journal of Air Law and Commerce Volume 35 | Issue 1 Article 2 1969 Major Disputes under the Railway Labor Act A. J. Harper II Follow this and additional works at: https://scholar.smu.edu/jalc Recommended Citation A. J. Harper II, Major Disputes under the Railway Labor Act, 35 J. Air L. & Com. 3 (1969) https://scholar.smu.edu/jalc/vol35/iss1/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at SMU Scholar. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of Air Law and Commerce by an authorized administrator of SMU Scholar. For more information, please visit http://digitalrepository.smu.edu. MAJOR DISPUTES UNDER THE RAILWAY LABOR ACT By A. J. HARPER Ilt I. INTRODUCTION A. Background And Legislative History T HE Railway Labor Act (hereinafter "RLA" or "Act")' is the cum- mulation of over fifty years of experimental legislation concerning labor-management relations on railroads.! In 1936 Congress passed Title II of the Act, which extended coverage to the airline industry! In 1934, the Act was amended to eradicate several shortcomings of the original 1926 Act. The most important creation of the 1934 amendment was section 2, Ninth providing a means for the resolution of representa- tional disputes. The reasons for the extension of the Act, in 1936, to the airline industry were varied. Among them, the following seem to have been controlling: (1) By 1936 almost all aspects of air transportation were regulated and this was deemed evidence of a strong public interest in this field which was sufficient to overcome any Congressional
    [Show full text]
  • Labor Law--Railway Labor Act § 2 (First) Good Faith Provision: Accommodation Or Return to Judicial Policy Making in Labor Disputes John W
    Kentucky Law Journal Volume 60 | Issue 2 Article 9 1971 Labor Law--Railway Labor Act § 2 (First) Good Faith Provision: Accommodation or Return to Judicial Policy Making in Labor Disputes John W. Oakley University of Kentucky Follow this and additional works at: https://uknowledge.uky.edu/klj Part of the Labor and Employment Law Commons Right click to open a feedback form in a new tab to let us know how this document benefits you. Recommended Citation Oakley, John W. (1971) "Labor Law--Railway Labor Act § 2 (First) Good Faith Provision: Accommodation or Return to Judicial Policy Making in Labor Disputes," Kentucky Law Journal: Vol. 60 : Iss. 2 , Article 9. Available at: https://uknowledge.uky.edu/klj/vol60/iss2/9 This Comment is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at UKnowledge. It has been accepted for inclusion in Kentucky Law Journal by an authorized editor of UKnowledge. For more information, please contact [email protected]. KENTUCKY LAw JOuRNAL [Vol. 60 proposed in the Presidents 1968 Tax Message'5 2 which noted the necessity for legislation due to the lack of certainty and uniformity in this area. Briefly, it provided for a 20 mile radius designated as the "duty area" inside of which no commuting would be deductible. This "duty area" would center around the taxpayer's principle post of duty, or in the proper circumstances, around his residence. The proposal also recognized the "temporary" employment exception in situations in which the employment lasted less than one year. Hope- fully, as a result of Correll, Congress will now take the initiative and provide some relief to the taxpayer who does not wish to spend the night.
    [Show full text]
  • Major Legislation Affecting Labor
    MAJOR LEGISLATION AFFECTING LABOR Listed here are the major pieces of federal legislation dealing with labor: ADA - Americans With Disabilities Act Passed in 1992, the ADA prohibits employer discrimination against individuals with temporary or permanent disabilities whether or not the disabilities are job related. (See attachments in Section 8 of this book.) Adamson Act A 1916 law fixing the 8-hour day as a pay basis for railroad employees, and prohibiting wage cuts because of the shorter workday. Anti-Injunction Act The Norris-La Guardia Act of 1932, which limits the power of federal courts in issuing injunctions in labor disputes. Modified by the Taft-Hartley Act (Labor-Management Relations Act of 1947). Anti-Racketeering Law The Hobbs Act of 1934, making it a felony to interfere with commerce by robbery or extortion, by conspiracy or threat of violence. Anti-Strikebreaker Law The Brynes Act of 1936, making it a felony to transport interstate any person employed to interfere with peaceful picketing, or to block organizing or collective bargaining by violence or threats of violence. Many states and municipalities have since 1960 enacted restrictions on strikebreakers. Antitrust Acts See Sherman Antitrust Act and Clayton Antitrust Act. Brynes Act See Anti-Strikebreaker Law. Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title 7 New Federal Fair Employment Practice Law, covering all industries affecting interstate commerce. It bars, as of July 1965, discrimination by employers, unions and employ- ment agencies, based on race, color, sex, religion, or national origin. Administered by five-member Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, through informal and formal procedures seeking voluntary compliance, with further recourse to a federal court, permission for the Attorney General to intervene, a court injunction and contempt proceedings.
    [Show full text]
  • The Railway Labor Act Howard W
    Boston College Law Review Volume 14 Article 2 Issue 5 Special Issue The Revenue Act of 1971 11-1-1970 The Railway Labor Act Howard W. Risher Jr Herbert R. Northrup Follow this and additional works at: http://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/bclr Part of the Labor and Employment Law Commons Recommended Citation Howard W. Risher Jr & Herbert R. Northrup, The Railway Labor Act, 14 B.C.L. Rev. 51 (1970), http://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/ bclr/vol14/iss5/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at Digital Commons @ Boston College Law School. It has been accepted for inclusion in Boston College Law Review by an authorized editor of Digital Commons @ Boston College Law School. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE RAILWAY LABOR ACT HOWARD W. RISHER, JR.* FOREWORD by HERBERT R. NORTHRUP When the editors of the Boston' College Industrial and Commer- cial Law Review asked me to contribute an article on a subject of long interest, the Railway Labor Act, I suggested that it be co-authored by my associate, Howard W. Risher, Jr. Mr. Risher has recently writ- ten a study, The Negro in the Railroad Industry,' and has been awarded a grant by the Manpower Administration, United States Department of Labor, to do his doctoral dissertation on the man- power implications of the railroad labor law. Upon receiving the con- sent of the editors, Mr. Risher proceeded to write a draft which I found so compellingly sound that I instructed him to send it to the editors on his own.
    [Show full text]
  • The 1926 Railway Labor Act and the Modern American Airline Industry: Changes and Chaos Outline the Need for Revised Legislation Lisa Catherine Tulk
    Journal of Air Law and Commerce Volume 69 | Issue 3 Article 8 2004 The 1926 Railway Labor Act and the Modern American Airline Industry: Changes and Chaos Outline the Need for Revised Legislation Lisa Catherine Tulk Follow this and additional works at: https://scholar.smu.edu/jalc Recommended Citation Lisa Catherine Tulk, The 1926 Railway Labor Act and the Modern American Airline Industry: Changes and Chaos Outline the Need for Revised Legislation, 69 J. Air L. & Com. 615 (2004) https://scholar.smu.edu/jalc/vol69/iss3/8 This Comment is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at SMU Scholar. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of Air Law and Commerce by an authorized administrator of SMU Scholar. For more information, please visit http://digitalrepository.smu.edu. THE 1926 RAILWAY LABOR ACT AND THE MODERN AMERICAN AIRLINE INDUSTRY: CHANGES AND "CHAOS" OUTLINE THE NEED FOR REVISED LEGISLATION LISA CATHERINE TULK I. INTRODUCTION T HE RAILWAY LABOR Act ("the RLA")I has governed labor in the airline industry since the industry's infancy, and is tailored to unique aspects of the transportation system in the United States. The RLA recognizes that the transportation in- dustry is vital to commerce and that interruptions in the opera- tions of the industry due to labor disputes can paralyze American commerce until such disputes, which may be relatively minor, are resolved. The airline industry has dramatically changed since the RLA was adopted. The industry has matured past infancy, under- gone government deregulation, and faced modern competitive pressures in changing economies.
    [Show full text]
  • The Railway Labor Act - a Misfit for the Airlines Malcolm A
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Southern Methodist University Journal of Air Law and Commerce Volume 19 | Issue 3 Article 2 1952 The Railway Labor Act - A Misfit for the Airlines Malcolm A. MacIntyre Follow this and additional works at: https://scholar.smu.edu/jalc Recommended Citation Malcolm A. MacIntyre, The Railway Labor Act - A Misfit of r the Airlines, 19 J. Air L. & Com. 274 (1952) https://scholar.smu.edu/jalc/vol19/iss3/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at SMU Scholar. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of Air Law and Commerce by an authorized administrator of SMU Scholar. For more information, please visit http://digitalrepository.smu.edu. THE RAILWAY LABOR ACT - A MISFIT FOR THE AIRLINES By MALCOLM A. MACINTYRE Debevoise, Plimpton & McLean, New York; member of the New York, Virginia and District of Columbia bars, B.A. Yale 1929, B.A. and B.C.L., Oxford University; J.S.D., Yale Law School 1933; Formerly, Air Transport Command, 1942-46, member of Washing- ton, D. C. firm Douglas, Proctor, MacIntyre and Gates. L ABOR-MANAGEMENT relations in the United States are today governed by two statutes, the Railway Labor Act, as amended,' and the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947 (Taft-Hartley Act) 2 which amended the National Labor Relations Act (Wagner Act) .3 Few realize that common carriers by air are governed by the Rail- way Labor Act which was extended to cover them and their employees in 1936.
    [Show full text]
  • Interstate Commerce Commission: the Ort Tuous Path from Regulation to Deregulation of America's Infrastructure Paul Stephen Dempsey
    Marquette Law Review Volume 95 Article 7 Issue 4 Summer 2012 The Rise and Fall of the Interstate Commerce Commission: The orT tuous Path From Regulation to Deregulation of America's Infrastructure Paul Stephen Dempsey Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/mulr Part of the Law Commons Repository Citation Paul Stephen Dempsey, The Rise and Fall of the Interstate Commerce Commission: The Tortuous Path From Regulation to Deregulation of America's Infrastructure, 95 Marq. L. Rev. 1151 (2012). Available at: http://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/mulr/vol95/iss4/7 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at Marquette Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Marquette Law Review by an authorized administrator of Marquette Law Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Marquette Law Review Volume 95 Article 7 Issue 4 Summer 2012 The Rise and Fall of the Interstate Commerce Commission: The orT tuous Path From Regulation to Deregulation of America's Infrastructure Paul Stephen Dempsey Repository Citation Paul Stephen Dempsey, The Rise and Fall of the Interstate Commerce Commission: The Tortuous Path From Regulation to Deregulation of America's Infrastructure, 95 Marq. L. Rev. 1151 (2012). Available at: http://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/mulr/vol95/iss4/7 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at Marquette Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Marquette Law Review by an authorized administrator of Marquette Law Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected].
    [Show full text]
  • RTHERHOOD of Tite O Extension Division
    /RTHERHOOD OF ILR I BRQ!EROOD OP LOCOMOTIVE Pi _tite o .elatons, Extension Division - University alifornia 55 Laguna Street San Frantisco, California May 6 and 7, 1959 7tABOR LA",,Th TH- RAfIRM0 INDiSTRY FRO1. LECT JRBS BY J. J. CORCORN;'GEERAL C NAIRMAN BROTIWTHOOD OF RAILROAD TRAIflEN SOUTHERN PACIFIC COMPANY (PACIFIC LIIbWS) TI-T4, RATWAY LABOR ACTa The Railway Labor Act plays an important role in daily railroad labor- management relations. The b!tter the individual, and particularly tlhe represen- tative, understands it, the better he will be equiipped to intelliger.tly cope waith the rnany complex problems in labor-management relations that arise in our daily w,ork on the railroad. The present Act is the culmination of over sixty years of experience with Federal Legislation in the railroad industry. Before going more thoroughly into the Railway Labor Act we should deal brieRly with so.ae of the various railrway labor acts which preceded thle present law. Prior to Federal Legislation in the railroad labor field, the employees, members of the operating brotherhoods, were able to dispose of some of their grievances through union representatives meeting with management on the railroads where managerment voluntarily or otherwise entered into contracts wvith these or- ganizations. The great majority of railroad employees, outside of tihe operating groups, were unorganized prior to 1920 and, of course, grievances were handled on an individual basis, usually on management's terms. Notwithstanding these handicaps, many grievances wo3re settled in line with the standards of labor- management relations as they prevailed on the particular individual railroad. In some instances a form of voluntary arbitration or conciliation was resorted to, embodiying the principles as established by the Arbitration Act of 1888.
    [Show full text]
  • Railway Employes' (Sic) Department V. Hanson, 351 US 225 (1956)
    RAILWAY EMPLOYES' DEPT. v. HANSON. 225 Syllabus. RAILWAY EMPLOYES' DEPARTMENT, AMERI- CAN FEDERATION OF LABOR, ET AL. v. HANSON ET AL. APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF NEBRASKA. No. 451. Argued May 2, 1956.-Decided May 21, 1956. Claiming that a "union shop" agreement between an interstate rail- road and unions of its employees made pursuant to § 2, Eleventh, of the Railway Labor Act, which expressly authorizes such agree- ments notwithstanding any state law, violated the First and Fifth Amendments of the Federal Constitution and the "right to work" provision of the Nebraska Constitution, nonunion employees of the railroad sued in a Nebraska state court to enjoin enforcement of such an agreement. Held.: On the record in this case, the agree- ment is valid and enforceable as to these employees. Pp. 227- 238. 1. The enactment of the federal statute authorizing union shop agreements is the governmental action on which the Constitution operates, though it takes a private agreement to invoke the federal sanction. Pp. 231-232. 2. Since § 2, Eleventh, of the Railway Labor Act expressly per- mits "union shop" agreements notwithstanding any, state law, an agreement made pursuant thereto has the imprimatur of the federal law upon it and, by. force of the Supremacy Clause of Art. VI of the Constitution, could not be invalidated or vitiated by any state law. P. 232. 3. On the record in this -case, the requirement for financial support of a collective-bargaining agency by all who receive the benefits of its work is within the power of Congress under the Commerce Clause and does not violate either the First or the Fifth Amendment.
    [Show full text]