|
The Norris-LaGuardia Act of 1932, passed in the last year of the Hoover
Administration, was one of the first laws to protect the rights of
workers so they can engage in activities brought onto by the unions. In
addition, this act gave labor unions the right to organize, strike, and use other forms of leverage against management without the interference of the federal court.
Specifically, "The act forbids federal courts to issue injunctions against
specifically described union activities and outlaws yellow-dog contracts"
(Fossum,2002; 65). The International Brotherhood of Boilermakers (2002) gave this
law credit by saying it is "undoubtedly one of the greatest accomplishments
of the American Federation of Labor." The Great Depression led to many changes with labor relations. For the first two years of the economic crisis, the President Hoover and Congress insisted that relief was the responsibility of the local governments. Believing that recovery was just a matter of restoring business confidence, the Hoover administration organized conferences to persuade corporate executives to resume production and stop cutting wages, to hasten the recovery just around the corner (Chitty and Murolo,2001;188). Congress began to explore new approaches to the industrial conditions and economic policy when unions started to lose more strikes in industries such as steel, coal, and rail. In Gompers versus Bucks Stove and Range Company of 1911, the federal courts used injunctions to bar unions from boycotting unfair goods and they urged workers to refuse to handle such goods. Additionally, Bedford Cut Stone and Company versus Journeymen Stonecutters of 1927, dealt with unions "attempting to organize workers who had been forced to sign yellow-dog contracts"(Willis,2000; 1 of 3). These cases led to the start of the Norris-LaGuardia Act. The hostility between employees and employers or the labor and management ran high. "The truth is that originally, before the passage of any of the laws dealing with labor, the employer had all the advantages. He had the employees at his mercy, and he could practically in most cases dictate the terms which he wished to impose"(Moser, 2002;166). The passage of the Norris-LaGuardia Act began to shift power to the other side, or to the employees. At the same time, union membership started to fall from five million workers in 1920 and to three million in 1933. Although the goal of the Norris-LaGuardia Act was aid in the recovery from the Depression, the labor movement continued to shrink. With all of these problems, it was evident that something had to change and the Norris-LaGuardia Act of 1932 helped with that change. The Norris-LaGuardia Act of 1932 "specifically prohibited Federal courts from enforcing yellow-dog contracts." From Labor Relation, by Fossum(2002), a yellow-dog contract is "an agreement between an employee and an employer in which the employee indicates that he or she is not a member of a lobar union and that joining a labor union in the future will be sufficient grounds for dismissal." Yellow-dog contracts are only for the workers of the union. The Norris-LaGuardia act also forbids injunctions or stopping someone from performing a specific act. A union cannot prevent a worker from doing his or her duty on the job. In addition, according to Labor Relations, by Fossum, unions cannot stop anyone from doing the following: becoming a member of a union, paying or withholding strike benefits, unemployment benefits, and the like to people participation in labor disputes, offer aid or assistance for persons suing or being sued, publicizing a lobar dispute in a nonviolent, nonfruadulent manner, or assembly to organize, notifying anyone that any of these acts are to be performed, agreeing to engage or not engage in any of these acts, or advising others to do any of these acts.(Fossum,2002; 65). It is only in the power of the highest courts to issue injunctions or restraining orders against strikes or other actions. The courts only issue injunctions if someone may be injured in the matter of property, or themselves. In addition, it is useful when no legal remedy exists but specific acts of violence or fraud exist. Unfair labor practice strikes come into affect with the Norris-LaGuardia Act. "The union's right to support another union is guaranteed by the Norris-LaGuardia Act, even if its contract contains a no-strike clause and provides for arbitration of unresolved grievances, unless it is clear that the no-strike clause prohibits sympathy strikes, as well"(Fossum,2002; 386). The Supreme Court has also added an exception to the prohibition against injunctions cases involving wildcat strikes. Wildcat strikes are unauthorized work stoppages during a contract. Under the Boy Market Exception, an employer may seek an injunctive relief against a wildcat strike if the employer is willing to submit the underlying issue to final and binding arbitration. A case in which the Norris-LaGuardia Act was almost used is the controversial Jacksonville Bulk Terminals Inc. versus International Longshoremen's Association in 1983. The controversy arose with the USSR's intervention into Afghanistan. The International Longshoremen's Association union members would not export or receive imports of cargo from the USSR. The case was held in Jacksonville Bulk Terminals, and the "US Supreme Court extended a previous holding that forbids a federal court from enjoining a politically motivated work stoppage in an action brought by an employer to enforce a no-strike clause in a collective bargaining agreement"(Lansing & Smith,1983; 249). The Norris-LaGuardia Act was used when the union contended that the anti-injunction provision of section four of the Norris-LaGuardia Act prevented the injunction from being issued. However, the Court's opinion did not matter because the union gave a narrow point of the Norris-LaGuardia Act (Lansing & Smith,1983; 249). This case provides a reality of how the Norris- LaGuardia Act is used to do a section four, or relieve labor organization from liability for wrongful acts under constitutional law (Federal Labor Laws;1993). The Norris- LaGuardia Act of 1932, is just a morsel of the Labor Relation Acts of the United States. It demonstrates the long march in the direction of letting U.S. workers conduct lawful and peaceful strikes without fear of revenge from the courts. It also took power away from the Federal courts to issue injunctions, except under very explicit conditions. It may just be a morsel, but it has had an enormous impact on American Unions, and the union's ability to express themselves, in regards to the Norris-LaGuardia Act. Reference PageChitty, AB., & Murole, P. (2001). From the Folks who Brought you The Weekend. NewYork: The New Press. Congressional Digest. (1993). (n.d.). Federal Labor Laws. http://eserver.org/history/us- labor-law.txt. (2002, September 25). Fossum, J. (2002-1979). Labor Relations. New York: McGraw Hill Irwin. In Search of a National Labor Policy. (1902). Dayton, Ohio: National Cash Register Co. Lansing, P., & Smith, K. (1983). Jacksonville Bulk Terminals: Should Politically Motivated Work Stoppage Be Enjoined Where a No-Strike Clause Exists in the Collective Bargaining Agreement? American Business Law Journal, 21, 249-250. Moser, J. (2002). President From Hoover through Truman 1929-1953. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press. The Norris LaGuardia Act. (2002). (n.d.). International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Iron Ship Builders, Blacksmiths, Forgers and Helpers. The Use of Injunctions in Labor Dispute. (n.d.). Regulation of Economic Pressure. http://www.missouri.edu/~labored/1997-32.html (2002,September 25) Willis, H. (2000). Labor and Employment Committee. The National Lawyers Guild. http://www.nlg.org/committees/labor/Little_Norris-LaGuardia.htm (2002, September 25). Student Web Page Disclaimer
|