Labor laws codify the obligations that accrue to business owners in the course of running their enterprises and interacting with employees. From the 18th century, employers relied on various standards that guided their interaction with workers (Fudge, 2017). The Babylonians applied the Code of Hammurabi, whereas the Laws of Manu became an integral factor in circumstances that involved the provision of specific products or services by Hindus. Moreover, the Spanish developed different regulations in the 17th century that applied to their territories in the New world. The concept of labor laws became extensively refined during the Industrial revolution. Over the years, the United States has enacted different laws that not only determine aspects pertaining to employer-employee relationships, but also the interaction of operational organizations with labor unions. As of 2019, American businesses employed approximately 155.76 million individuals (Plecher, 2021). American workers enjoy numerous protections and privileges from the implemented regulations. The ability of upcoming businesses to adhere to set regulations eliminates their vulnerability to legal litigations. The current paper aims at evaluating the provisions of different labor laws and their implications on operational organizations and union-management relationships.
Railway Labor Act
The Railway Labor Act refers to a regulation implemented in 1926. However, the legislation became subject to amendment in the 1934. 45 U.S.C. §l5l of the Act stipulates the liabilities that accrue to common carriers in the event that employees become subject to injuries or any form of suffering in the process of dispensing their mandate. On the other hand, 45 U.S.C. §159a highlights the special procedures applicable in the resolution of disputes (Cornell Law School, n.d.). The regulation explains the instances that mandates the formulation of the first and second emergency boards. Furthermore, the regulation highlights the circumstances in which public hearings become appropriate. More specifically, the records measures become applicable in circumstances without appropriate settlements pertaining to various disputes.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Impact on organizations and union–management relationship
The Railway Labor Act admonishes companies providing railway services to avoid any forms of interruptions. Even so, the regulation’s provisions permit workers to form unions. Organizations can extensively benefit from the RLA as it provides the necessary procedures applicable in properly settling disputes that pertain to payment rates or work conditions (Andrias, 2018). Additionally, operational companies can rely on the Act's provisions to find amicable Solutions where differences become apparent in the interpretation of existing contracts or their application.
The RLA extensively determines how the management of various corporations consider union-related activities in which their employees participate. More specifically, unions have an allowance to participate in strikes after negotiation or mediation procedures fail to yield the outcomes anticipated with respect to major disputes. On the other hand, the RLA can easily bar strikes instigated by minor work-related challenges. Companies can rely on the RLA’s provisions and enjoin strikes particularly where unions failed to exhaust the appropriate procedures necessary in resolving conflict.
Norris-LaGuardia Act
The Norris-LaGuardia Act was implemented in 1932. The legislative act eliminated judicial in addition to legal barriers that underlined the conduct anticipated from American workers. The regulation highlighted the right of labor union members to freely associate with each other. The act restricts the issuance of injunctions by federal courts to stop boycotts and strikes organized by laborers. In Sinclair Refining Co. v. Atkinson (1962), the litigation procedures involve the evaluation of the labor management relations act provisions stipulated in § 301 (a). The employee involved sought to enjoin labor union-related activities to a violation of the bargaining agreement made collectively that contained a clause forbidding strikes. Even so, the Norris-LaGuardia Act barred the injunction under §4.
Impact on organizations and union–management relationship
The regulation restricted the pledges that organizations may require their employees to make. More specifically, operational enterprises confess legal litigation for making workers to sign yellow-dog contracts (SHRM, 2016). The agreements restrict employees from joining labor unions. American businesses must allow employees to interact with members of their respective trade unions without disturbance. The act protects workers' leaders from any form of liabilities whether criminal or civil unless they engaged in the ratification of various regulations. Prior to the act's implementation, employers could easily obtain a labor injunction that applied ex parte provisions. More specifically, the injunctions included vague terms that included any conduct and speech that could facilitate collective efforts from employees. The Norris-LaGuardia Act outlawed the labor injunctions. The management teams working for operational enterprises have no authority to coerce or restrain employees from joining unions.
Wagner Act
The Wagner Act became effective from 1935 and focused on safeguarding the rights of workers affiliated with the private sector. The 29 U.S.C. § 153–156 stipulates various provisions pertaining to the establishment of the National Labor Relations Board that focuses on the implementation of the regulation's terms (Johnston, 2018). Section 7 of the act allows employees to become part of trade unions. The regulation also permits their engagement in initiatives that facilitate collective bargaining. Section 9 of the regulation highlights the conditions under which union participants can elect their respective bargaining representatives.
Impact on organizations and union–management relationship
The Wagner Act admonishes operational companies to refrain from actions that culminate in the interference of their employees’ efforts to join activities that facilitate the organization of trade unions. The legislation any provisions that may restrain and coerce workers curtailing their freedom to engage in collective bargaining processes with a specific interest in their wages and working conditions. The law makes it illegal for operational enterprises to control and interfere with processes that culminated in the creation of labor organizations in addition to their administration. The Wagner Act mandates companies not to engage in actions that culminate in employee discrimination owing to their affiliation with specific labor organizations. Company management must adhere to the regulation that emphasizes on the need to refrain in instances where they discourage workers from participating in activities scheduled by their respective labor unions. Additionally, workers enjoy the protection of the Wagner Act to issue testimonies without the fear of retribution from the companies they work for.
Taft-Hartley Act
The Taft-Hartley Act was implemented in 1947. The federal law became enacted after the strikes experienced in the United States from 1945 to 1946. The legislation’s provisions served as an Amendment of the National Labor Relations Act enacted in 1935. The Act implement some restrictions against unions prohibiting them from engaging in labor practices deemed as unfair McFarland & Bishop, 2017). The regulation phased out closed shops that emphasized on the implementation of contracts mandating employers to recruit individuals who had acquired some union membership. In situations involving jurisdictional disputes, the classes included in the Taft-Hartley Act meditate for unions to assume liability for any prevalent damages. Additionally, non-communist oaths became mandatory among union leaders.
Impact on organizations and union–management relationship
Operational organizations can evaluate the certification accorded to unions to determine their eligibility to act as bargaining representative under the requirements indicated in the Taft-Hartley Act. The inability of the respective bodies to fulfill the law's requirements makes them incapable of negotiating or meditating on behalf of the parties demanding the appropriate records measures. Companies could rely on the regulation's provisions as it restricted the engagement of workers in secondary boycotts, mass picketing, monetary donations, jurisdictional or wildcat strikes as well as closed shops. The Act authorized American states to implement regulations that prohibited the formulation of agency shops. The relationship between management and unions mandated thorough scrutiny to ensure that employees refrained from refusing to handle any commodities affiliated with an organization that interacted with a specified targeted enterprise.
Landrum-Griffin Act
The Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act was implemented in 1959. The legislation focused on regulating the internal affairs conducted by labor unions. Additionally, the Act extensively evaluated how Union officials interacted with employees and the resultant relationships that they formed. The provisions included in the legislation emphasized on the need for unions to have secret elections. Additionally, the Department of Labor held the mandate to review their proceedings. Union members enjoyed the protections listed in the Bill of Rights. More specifically, participants could speak freely and could secretly elect officers (Abrahamjan, 2020). Initially, individuals affiliated with the Communist Party faced numerous restrictions in assuming the responsibilities conferred upon union officials. In 1965, a review of the provision deemed it unconstitutional. The prohibitions also applied to convicted felons. Furthermore, the Landrum-Griffin Act made it mandatory for unions to ascertained that the Department of Labor could access their financial reports on an annual basis. The legislation conferred a fiduciary status to union officers with respect to handling its assets or affairs.
Impact on organizations and union–management relationship
Labor organizations face numerous restrictions in engaging in practices considered as improper. The prohibitions also applied to employers and mandated their adherence the terms indicated in the Bill of Rights that focused on the plight of union members.
Conclusion
The labor regulations implemented in the United States focus on protecting the right of different parties engaged in work relationships or advocating for the rights of workers. The laws highlight circumstances that mandate legal litigation processes, particularly unions, employees or their employers fail to align their conduct with the provisions set out in various employment related regulations. The Acts facilitate the creation of work environment characterized by fairness.
References
Abrahamjan, A. (2020). The Civil Service Procedures and Purpose for Public Sector Employees (Doctoral dissertation, California State University, Northridge).
Andrias, K. (2018). An American approach to social democracy: the forgotten promise of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Yale LJ, 128, 616.
Cornell Law School. (n.d.). 45 U.S. code § 159a - Special procedure for commuter service. LII / Legal Information Institute. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/45/159a
Fudge, J. (2017). The future of the standard employment relationship: Labour law, new institutional economics and old power resource theory. Journal of Industrial Relations, 59(3), 374-392.
Johnston, H. (2018). Workplace Gains beyond the Wagner Act: The New York Taxi workers alliance and participation in administrative rulemaking. Labor Studies Journal, 43(2), 141-165.
McFarland, A. R., & Bishop, W. S. (2017). Chapter III. The Statutory Changes Arising from the Taft-Hartley Amendments–Congressional Intent and Effect. In Union Authorization Cards and the NLRB (pp. 18-28). University of Pennsylvania Press.
Plecher, H. (2021, January 26). United States - Employment 2020 | Statista. Statista. https://www.statista.com/statistics/269959/employment-in-the-united-states/
SHRM. (2016, April 28). Norris Laguardia act. https://www.shrm.org/resourcesandtools/legal-and-compliance/employment-law/pages/norris-laguardia-act.aspx
Sinclair Refining Co. v. Atkinson, 370 U.S. 195, 82 S. Ct. 1328, 8 L. Ed. 2d 440 (1962).
