Limited time offer 20% OFF StudySoup Subscription details

Cornell - ILRLR 2010 - Study Guide - Midterm

Created by: Phil Deutsch Elite Notetaker

> > > > Cornell - ILRLR 2010 - Study Guide - Midterm

Cornell - ILRLR 2010 - Study Guide - Midterm

0 5 3 36 Reviews
This preview shows pages 1 - 6 of a 36 page document. to view the rest of the content
background image The  Common  Law   Historical  Framework Unions  didn't  succeed  until  1870's  Knights  of  Labor Against  strikes  on  principle,  engaged  in  cooperative  negotiation  (not  CB),   admitted  skilled  workers,  manual  laborers  (farmers  etc.),  non-­‐workers   (lawyers  etc.) Biggest  success  came  from  Jay  Gould  railroad  strike  for  discrimination   against  strikers  (1885) Huge  surge  in  membership,  huge  decline  bc  inexperienced  leadership  &   different  interests AFL  w  Gompers  at  the  headed,  founded  as  defensive  measure.  Job  &  Wage   Consciousness  -­‐ increase  bargaining  power  in  workplce Judicial  Response  to  Labor  Disputes Criminal  Conspiracy Law's  original  response  treated  groups  of  craftsmen  as  criminal  conspiracy Philadelphia  Cordwainers  (Commonwealth  v.  Pullis) Philadelphia  Mayor's  Court Local  decision Facts Shoe  makers  would  only  work  at  wages  higher  than  usual,   tried  to  stop  others  from  accepting  lower  rates  (threats,  menaces,  and   other  unlawful  means) Wouldn't  work  for  someone  who  employed  non-­‐union  workers Issue Should  workers  be  allowed  to  set  their  own  prices  and  so  influence  the   market? Holding/decision Defendants  found  guilty,  fined  $8.00  each  (slap  on  the  wrist) Case  was  more  about  setting  precedent  than  punishment § Reasoning Levy  says  the  free  market  is  "natural,"  workers  setting  their  own  rates  is   unnatural,  unfair  -­‐    supply  and  demand  vs.  arbitrary  prices Hurts  people  who  try  to  participate  in  the  free  market  -­‐ "against  the   public  welfare" § Unions  force  people  to  keep  striking,  even  if  they'd  want  to  work  for   cheaper Rule/Legal  Principle Spirit  of  '76s  -­‐ contrasts  theme  of    "general  and  individual  liberty"  from   constitution Judicial  Response  to  Labor  Disputes Criminal  conspiracy Courts  treat  unions  as  criminal  conspiracies Philadelphia  Cordwainers  (1806) § Emergence  of  ends-­‐means  doctrine Courts  more  favorable  -­‐ it's  about  whether  what  the  union  does  is   threatening Overturned  Cordwainers,  says  unions  are  chill  unless  they  cause   physical  harm § Commonwealth  v.  Hunt  (1842) The  Labor  Injunction Courts  issued  injunctions  of  union  activity  to  restrain  strikes  and  boycotts Vegelahn  v.  Guntner  (1896) Vegelahn  v.  Guntner  (1896) Facts:   People  are  picketing,  putting  pressure  on  employers,  stop  everyone  going   in Want  ER  to  feel  pressure,  give  in  to  demands  of  higher  wages Procedural  Posture: ER  (Vegelahn)  asks  for  preliminary  injunction  to  stop  picketing Judge  grants  it,  broadly  worded § 1. Case  is  heard  on  merits  (by  Holmes) Also  grants  injunction  for  employer Only  prevents  threats  of  harm,  physical  interference,  contract   interference  (not  peaceful  picketing) § 2. State  goes  to  state  supreme  court,  Judge  Allen  writes  majority  opinion,   over-­‐ruling  Holmes  and  re-­‐installing  the  broader  injunction 3. Holding: First  injunction  was  right Reasoning Allen  (majority) Picketing  &  protesting  prevents  people  from  entering  the  business,   harder  for  business  to  carry  on  as  usual,  disrupts  market § Contract  Rights  -­‐ Constitutional Interferes  with  right  of  ER  to  hire  whomever  they  want Same  for  EE,  right  to  work  where  they  want § Uses  Sherry  v.  Perkins  -­‐ precedent Picketing  can  lead  to  intimidation  of  other  EEs,  leading  to   violence  (even  if  it  starts  peaceful) § Private  nuisance  (tort),  violates  the  common  law § Holmes'  Dissent: Argues  "Some  intentional  infliction  of  temporal  damage  is  justified" Allen  talks  about  temporal  damage,  usually  illegal  but  there  are   exceptions § Uses  an  analogy  of  business  competition Small  town  with  one  store,  can  only  handle  one  store  (customer   base),  new  business  comes  into  town,  puts  the  old  one  out  of   business.  There's  no  law  against  that.  People  are  pissed  but  it   happens. § Free  competition  is  worth  more  to  society  than  it  costs § Two  businesses  competing  =  union  v.  employers They're  both  trying  to  improve  their  economic  position,  but   by  different  means,  so  they  should  be  allowed  to  compete § Free-­‐market  viewpoint Allen  is  supporting  the  status  quo  and  calling  it  the  free  market,  but   it's  not There  are  inherent  imbalances  of  power § Judicial  Response  to  Protective  Labor  Legislation Voters  pressured  legislators  to  start  passing  laws  to  protect  EEs  (19th-­‐20th  c) Those  laws  are  challenged  in  court Starts  with  someone  saying  "this  law  is  affecting  me,  and  it's   unconstitutional" Federal  Court  System US  District  Courts Lowest  level,  collects  case  facts  &  makes  decision US  Courts  of  Appeals Reviews  District  Court  decisions Broken  into  circuits US  Supreme  Court  (for  states,  just  bc  it  says  Supreme  doesn't  mean  it's  the   highest  one) Can  review  U.S.  Court  of  Appeals'  decision They  have  the  discretion  to  take  whichever  cases  they  want  from  circuits Can  review  decisions  of  highest  state  courts  if they  involve  federal  issues US  Constitution  or  federal  statute § Legislative  +  Judicial  Branches Constitutional  challenges Supreme  Court  has  final  word Statutory  Interpretation  challenges Congress  has  final  word Lochner  v.  NY  (1905)  US  Supreme  Court Issue:  Bakery  EEs  can't  work  more  than  60  hours  a  week,  10  a  day.  Violate  14th   Amendment  (due  process)? Why  would  NY  pass  the  law?   Health  concern  for  bakers,  long  hours  in  conditions  potentially   detrimental  to  health § Hours  &  public  health,  bakers  make  a  public  good  (bread).  Working   more  may  hinder  the  quality  of  that § Legal  Question:  Did  the  NY  law  setting  a  60-­‐hour  maximum  work-­‐week  for   bakers  violate  the  14th  Amendment? Holding:  Violated  14th  Amendment,  Individuals  can't  be  deprived  of  life,  liberty   (to  contract),  property  without  due  process No  state  can  interfere  with  liberty  unless  it's  a  correct  exercise  of  police   powers Law  interferes  w  EEs'  freedom  to  make  their  own  contracts Police  power  =  state  power  to  intervene  with  safety,  health,  morals,  and  general   welfare Reasoning: We  don't  buy  the  link  between  hours,  baker  health,  and  public  health Interfering  with  right  to  make  contract  of  ER  and  EE,  protected  by  14th   Amendment   No  reason  workers  can't  handle  their  own  contracting "There  must  be  more  than  the  mere  fact  of  the  possible  existence   of  some  unhealthiness…" § Holmes'  Dissent: We  should  have  more  respect  for  legislative  process/voters The  people  know  what  they  want § Usury  laws,  interfered  with  peoples  lives  &  freedom  to  contract  -­‐ approved  as  constitutional,  proper  use  of  police  powers Government  limits  amount  of  interest  charged  on  a  loan Regulating  lotteries Sunday  Laws  -­‐ no  contracts  can  be  made  on  Sunday § Liberty  is  perverted  when  it  doesn't  let  legislative  majorities  decide  public   interest  at  a  historical  moment Holmes  thinks  the  courts  are  legislating,  which  they  shouldn't  be § Adkins  v.  Children's  Hospital  (1923)  US  Supreme  Court Facts: D.C.  legislators  use  police  powers  to  require  a  base  minimum  wage  for   women  workers Morals:  Low  wages  drives  women  to  prostitution Issue:  Is  the  D.C.  law  mandating  a  minimum  wage  for  women  (children  too,  but   dwai)  infringing  the  5th/14th  Amendment,  depriving  liberty  without  proper  use   of  police  powers Holding:  Yup Procedural  Posture: First  Case: Appellee  is  the  children's  Hospital Says  women  are  happy  with  their  wages § Adkins  wins,  injunction  is  not  granted § Second  Case: Appellee  is  woman  who  lost  her  job  at  a  hotel  because  of  wage  hike § US  District  court CH  (p)  v.  A  (d) Plaintiff  v.  Defendant § Court  of  Appeals CH  (appellant)  v.  A  (appellee,  respondent)  -­‐ since  A  won  last  time § CH  wins § US  Supreme  Court A  (appellant/petitioner)  v.  CH  (appellee,  respondent) § Reasoning: (1)  Adair  &  Coppage  define  liberty  as  liberty  to  contract Adair  v.  US  -­‐ person  has  right  to  sell  his/her  labor § Coppage  v.  Kansas  -­‐ right  to  make  contracts  to  get  money,  can't   interfere  with  this  liberty § Sometimes  liberty  to  contract  can  be  interfered  with  -­‐ due  process The  government  is  just  regulating  itself Exceptions (2)  Type  1:  Munn  v.  Illinois  -­‐ statutes  fixing  rates  &  charges  exacted   by  businesses  that  serve  a  public  interest Not  applicable  bc  Munn  is  a  public  interest,  Adkins  is  private   bc  it's  a  private  contract § (3)  Type  2:  Atkins  v.  Kansas;  Heim  v.  McCall;  Ellis  v.  US  -­‐ Laws   regulated  affairs  between  gov't  and  business  (hours,  wages,  etc.) Not  applicable  bc  since  the  gov't  is  one  of  the  parties  to  the   contract,  police  powers  are  valid  since  the  gov't  is  policing   itself When  the  gov't  partners  w  something  else,  can't  work  more   than  8-­‐hour  days  (yes,  police  power  gucci) § (4)  Type  3:  Statutes  concerning  the  circumstances  of  payment   (methods,  time,  etc.) Not  applicable,  didn't  establish  the  amount being  paid McLean  v.  Arkansas  -­‐ miner  employers  need  to  pay  for   amount  mined  before  screening  (refining) SC  says  that's  cool ® Knoxville  v.  Harbison  -­‐ pay  in  cash Eric  v.  Williams  -­‐ time  pay § (5)  Type  4:  Statutes  fixing  hours  of  labor  (max-­‐hour  laws) Court  says  law  set  on  health  needs Miners,  smelters,  some  manufacturers ® Holden  v.  Hardy,  Supreme  court  case,  Utah  law Was  constitutional,  police  powers  was  legit  bc   there  was  a  real  health  risk ® Lochner  wasn't  constitutional  bc  baker's  conditions   weren't  that  bad,  and  the  long  hours  weren't  a  proven   health  risk ® Wages  are  more  central  to  the  contract  than  hours,  limiting   them  is  more  harmful Only  focused  on  specific  industries  (not  areas),  DC  is  for   everybody § (6)  19th  Amendment  (women's  suffrage)  -­‐ that  means  they  don’t  need   special  protection (7)  Law  harms  ERs,  puts  an  unfair  burden  on  them (8)  Law  is  vague,  can't  regulate  the  wages*  (find  this  out  from  someone   else) Dissent: Taft Wages  &  hours  can  be  equally  detrimental,  they're  multiplied   together § 19th  Amendment  doesn't  get  rid  of  physical  weakness,  etc.  so   women  still  need  protection § Inequality  in  bargaining  power  ("not  all  workers  are  upon  the  full   level  of  the  quality  of  choice  with  their  employer  and  they're  prone   to  accept  pretty  much  whatever  is  offered") § About  the  Type  3  precedent,  laws  that  affect  how someone  is  paid   serve  the  same  goal  as  minimum  wage  laws Consistent  with  the  means-­‐end  doctrine § Not  function  of  court  to  carry  out  economic  views § Holmes 5th  Amendment  too  vague,  it  doesn't  say  "liberty  to  contract" § Usury  laws,  etc.  violate  liberty  to  contract  but  were  all  upheld Agrees  w  the  type  3  precedents Employers  of  sailors  can't  pay  them  before  the  leave  port § Federal  Courts Appellee/Respondent Won  immediately  below Appellant/Petitioner Lost  immediately  below Legal  question What  law,  whom  does  it  affect What  does  it  violate  (Constitution?  Which  part?) What  does  it  deprive  someone  of  (liberty?) West  Coast  Hotel  v.  Parrish  (1937) Facts: State's  kept  legislating  minimum  wage  laws  even  though  Adkins  had   already  lost,  voter  pressure Given  the  Great  Depression,  what  constitutes  proper  use  of  police  powers   may  be  shifting Putting  money  in  workers'  pockets  will  stimulate  the  economy § Legal  Question:  Was  Washington  State's  minimum  wage  law  for  women  an   unconstitutional  interference  with  the  14th  Amendment's  protection  of  liberty? Pretty  much  same  question  as  Adkins Holding:  It  was  constitutional,  due  process,  proper  use  of  police  powers Overturned  Adkins  -­‐ big  deal Reasoning:   Lines  of  reasoning  are  the  same  from  Adkins,  but  switch  sides. The  Great  Depression  is  a  game  changer,  the  only  major  difference The  switch  in  time  that  saved  9 FDR  passed  laws,  court  kept  overturning  them,  threatened  to  add  more   justices  in  favor  of  New  Deal Justice  Roberts  switches  and  joins  the  majority NLRB  v.  Jones  &  Laughlin  Steel  Co.  (1937) When  the  federal  legislature  was  trying  to  pass  laws,  they  relied  on  the   Commerce  Clause  to  justify  legislative  acts  bc  Congress  has  to  find  something  in   the  Constitution  that  gives  it  the  power  to  legislate Facts:   10  EEs  were  fired  for  trying  to  organize  (right  protected  by  the  NLRA) Co.  challenges  NLRA's  constitutionality,  Commerce  Clause Legal  Question:  Did  the  US  Congress  exceed  its  Constitutional  authority   pursuant  to  the  Commerce  Clause  when  it  enacted  the  NLRA Holding:  Nah  we  gucci Reasoning: Commerce  Clause  authority  is  broad Congress  has  power  to  regulate  things  that  might  affect  commerce § NLRA  is  regulating  activities  that  may  affect  interstate  commerce  (strikes,   boycotts,  etc.) NLRA  preserves  freedom  of  contract  more  than  burdens  it Gov't  interference  through  NLRA  (allowing  CB)  helps  equalize   bargaining  power § Modern  (New  Deal)  Labor  Legislation Beginning  of  labor  law  as  we  know  it Norris  LaGuardia  Act  of  1932 Outlaws  yellow-­‐dog  contracts  (stop  people  from  joining  unions) Outlaws  federal  injunctions  against  non-­‐violent  labor  disputes National  Labor  Relations  Act  1935 Prohibited  employer  behavior  only Taft  Hartley  Act Amendment  to  NLRA NLRA  gave  unions  too  much  power  since  it  only  imposed  restrictions  on   employers For  every  statute  we  should  ask Who  is  covered? Threshold  issue,  we  need  to  see  if  this  holds  true  first What  protections  are  provided? How  is  it  enforced? For  every  statutory  case: Consider  relevant  rule(s)/rubric(s)  for  similar  cases Cases  are  similar  if  they  have  a  similar  legal  issue/question NLRA:  Who's  covered? Interstate  commerce Jones  &  Laughlin  Steel ER/EE  relationship  required  (NLRA  Sec.  2) Look  at  p.  50  of  stat  sup Who's  not: Gov't  employees Agriculture  &  Domestic  Service  workers Supervisors Independent  contractors NLRB  v.  United  Insurance  (1968,  SCOTUS) Facts: Debit  agents  work  at  an  insurance  company,  they  organize  a  union  &  get  a   majority  to  do  so,  but  they're  independent  contractors Legal  Question:  Are  debit  agents  employees  with  the  right  to  organize,  or  are   they  independent  contractors  under  NLRA  Section  2  (3)? Holding:  They  are  EEs Procedural  Posture: NLRB  says  they're  EEs,  certified  to  form  a  union Court  of  Appeals  declines  Board's  bargaining  order Supreme  Court  Reverses Reasoning: Agents  are  not  independent,  have  no  initiative  or  decision  making   authority  that  contractors  usually  have New  decisive  factors: Agents  don't  operate  their  own  business,  but  perform  essential   functions  for  the  company § Agents  were  trained  by  company § Do  business  under  company  name  w  assistance  from  company § "Agent's  Commission  Plan"  maintained  unilaterally  by  ER § Account  to  company  for  funds  they  collect § Receive  company  benefits § Have  a  permanent  working  arrangement § Roadway  Package  System  Inc.  (NLRB  decision  1998) Issue:  Are  the  drivers  at  Roadway's  Ontario  and  Panoma  Terminals  EEs  or  ICs   under  the  NLRA Holding:  The  drivers  at  Roadway's  Ontario  and  Panoma  Terminals  are   employees,  not  ICs  under  the  NLRA Reasoning: They  receive  guidance/supervision  from  the  company  -­‐ how  they  should   dress,  conduct  deliveries,  etc. They  don't  operate  an  independent  business Their  trucks  say  Roadway,  they  can't  use  them  to  deliver  for  another   business § Do  an  essential  task  for  normal  operations  of  the  business Receive  training  from  company  upon  employment Regardless  of  what  they  do,  they  have  a  fixed  pay  (no  gain  or  loss  based   on  commission) Entrepreneurial  Opportunity,  are  they  in  business  for  themselves § Judicial  Intervention  (in  Labor  Disputes) Judicial  response  to  Legislative  Intervention Before  New  Deal Lochner  v.  NY  (1905) Adkins  v.  Children's  Hospital  (1923) After  New  Deal West  Coast  Hotel  (1937) Jones  &  Laughlin  Steel  (1937) Legislative  Intervention  (Modern  Labor  Legislation) Norris  LaGuardia  Act  of  1932 National  Labor  Relations  Act  of  1935 Statutory,  looking  at  interpreting  what  Congress  meant  when  it  legislated Legislative  history  (hearings,  debates,   § Factors:  Totality  of  the  Circumstances  Test  (5  factors) Independent  business?  (Yes  -­‐ IC,  No  -­‐ EE) Significant  entrepreneurial  opportunity  for  gain  or  loss?  (Yes  -­‐ IC,  No  -­‐ EE) Prior  training  or  experience  required?  (Yes  -­‐ EE,  No  -­‐ IC) Performing  essential  functions?  (Yes  -­‐ EE,  No  -­‐ IC) Receive  significant  guidance,  supervision,  assistance  from  company   manager/supervisor  (Yes  -­‐ EE,  No  -­‐ IC) Dial-­‐A-­‐Mattress  (NLRB  1998) Workers  were  found  to  be  ICs No  training No  requirements  about  how  the  trucks  were  used Drivers  owned  multiple  trucks,  hired  other  helpers  &  drivers They  could  deliver  for  anyone  except  Dial's  competitors,  etc. Look  at  the  facts  through  the  lens  of  the  Totality  test Look  at  the  legal  question Teaching  Assistants/Students As  board's  constitution  of  members  changes,  certain  issues  that  are  more  politicized   than  others  flip  back  and  forth Football  Players  at  Northwestern Northwestern  Athletes  wanted  bargaining  power University  challenged  that  claim,  said  they  weren't  employees  &  weren't   covered  under  NLRA NLRA  Section  7 7:  EEs  have  the  right  to  engage  in  concerted  activity  for  mutual  aid  or  protection This  is  the  big  right  that  the  law  gave  employees 8a1:  ERs  cannot  interfere  with  Sec.  7  rights Elements EEs Concerted Protected Mutual  aid  or  protection What  is  concerted  activity? City  disposal Usually,  more  than  one NLRB  v.  City  Disposal  (1984) Facts: James  Brown's  truck  breaks  down,  is  told  to  drive  No.  244  (has  trouble   breaking)  by  Jasmund Brown  refuses  and  doesn't  cite  Article  XXI  directly  (EEs  not  required   to  operate  dangerous  equipment) § Refuses  to  drive  the  truck,  is  discharged  after  Robert  Mandary  tells  him  to   go  home  for  refusal  to  drive Brown    files  case  under  Sec.  7 ER  says  brown  was  acting  alone,  not  concerted § Union  declined  Brown's  grievance § This  is  a  unionized  workplace,  they  have  a  CB  agreement  and  a  contract   (see  Article  XXI  above)  (footnote  1,  p.  193) Issue Did  an  individual  engage  in  concerted  activity  under  NLRA  Sec  7  by   invoking  a  CB  agreement  such  that  it  was  a  Sec  8a1  violation  for  the   employer  to  fire  him? Holding: The  individual's  concerted  activity  was  in  accordance  with  the  NLRA Procedural  Posture: ALJ  found  Brown's  refusal  to  be  covered  under  Sec  7 NLRB  agrees  with  ALJ,  Brown  should  be  reinstated  with  backpay Court  of  Appeals  reverses,  Brown  acted  on  his  own Reasoning: Plain  language  of  the  statute Section  7  says  joining  and  assisting a  labor  organization  is  engaging   in  concerted  activity  through  participation  in  that  org § Conduct  by  an  individual  that  comes  from  group  activity  is  concerted, Board  determines  this  through  the  "Interboro  Doctrine,"  under   which  an  individual's  assertion  of  a  right  that  has  been  collectively   bargained  for  is  recognized  as  concerted  activity § One  person  invoking  a  provision  of  a  contract  is  invoking  the  CB   process  that  led  to  it § Article  XXI  of  the  contract,  can't  use  dangerous  equipment § Upholding  a  CBA  will  affect  the  rights  of  others  who  might  invoke  that   right Collective  affect  reasoning § Congressional  intent Congress  wanted  to  promote  concerted  activity  to  offset  inequality   of  bargaining  power § Consistent  with  the  purposes  of  the  act § Board  deference The  board  is  reasonable,  defer  to  it's  reasoning  when  so § NLRA  Section  7  and  8a  ULPs What  is  protected  concerted activity Concerted=group  (2  or  more) One  EE  engages  in  concerted  activity  when: Invokes  a  right  from  the  CBA  (City  Disposal) § Employee  wants  to  induce  group  activity § Acts  as  a  representative  of  a  group  decision § What  is  protected concerted  activity Spontaneous  walkout  of  unorganized  EEs  due  to  extreme  cold  was   protected  (Washington  Aluminum) Washington  Aluminum Facts: Seven  EEs  worked  in  a  machine  shop,  wasn't  insulated  (no  heat) Non-­‐union  workers § Jan  5  weather  was  super  cold  bc  furnace  broke  down One  EE  went  into  the  foreman's  quarters,  usually  warmer,  cold § EEs  huddled  together  for  warmth,  one  repeated  foreman's  words  "if  you   had  any  guts  you'd  go  home" They  leave,  they're  fired Issue:  Did  the  non-­‐unionized  workers  engage  in  protected  concerted  activity   under  Section  7  by  walking  out  such  that  it  was  a  violation  of  Section  8a1  for  ER   to  fire  them? Holding:  This  was  a  violation Reasoning: Grew  out  of  a  "labor  dispute"  Section  2(9)  due  to  condition  of   employment  (cold) Section  7  is  broad  to  protect  concerted  activity Unorganized  employees  are  protected  too § Narrow  reasoning  would  frustrate  the  purpose  of  the  act,  to  protect   the  right  of  workers  to  work  together  to  offset  bargaining  power § Section  7  doesn't  cover  everything,  but  the  EEs  didn't  do  these   exceptions: Unlawful  activity,  violence,  breach  of  contract,  disloyal  actions § Jefferson  Standard  (1953) Facts: Impasse  in  renewal  of  CBA  between  Jefferson  and  Local  1229 Union  pickets  peacefully  -­‐ trying  to  put  pressure  on  negotiations Starts  handing  out  handbills  attacking  quality  of  Jefferson's  programming 10  EEs  are  fired Issue:  Were  the  technicians  fired  for  "cause"  because  of  "disloyalty"  under   section  10(c)  of  NLRA  -­‐ Taft  Hartley  -­‐ which  excludes  them  from  sec  7  protection   and  is  not  a  violation  of  sec  8(a)1 Is  the  firing  of  the  technicians  a  sec  8(a)1  violation,  or  is  it  a  for  cause   dismissal  for  disloyalty? Holding:  The  company  is  justified  in  firing  these  employees  for  "cause"  because   of  "disloyalty"  under  Section  10(c)  of  NLRA,  excluding  EEs  from  sec  7  protection Reasoning: Handbills  didn't  talk  about  labor  at  all  in  disparagement  of  the  service Attack  made  no  reference  to  wages,  hours,  working  conditions § Attached  policies  made  by  management,  not  technicians § Didn't  ask  for  any  support  or  sympathy § Technicians  attacked  public  policies  of  company  unrelated  to   dispute § Needs  to  be  temporal  labor  dispute,  public  needs  to  understand  it  will  be   resolved  at  the  end  of  the  dispute Since  there's  no  mention  of  union  activity,  the  public  can't  know   this,  not  clear  disparaging  terms  would  change  if  labor  conditions   improve § Under  section  10(c),  EEs  can  be  discharged  for  "cause"  by  disloyalty Acted  counter  to  the  interests  of  company  they  were  paid  to  uphold § Purpose  of  NLRA  is  to  support  peace  and  stability,  technicians  did  neither Not  the  purpose  of  the  NLRA  for  ER  to  finance  these  actions § Jimmy  John's Facts: Jimmy  John's  workers  don’t  get  paid  sick  days Some  hand  out  pamphlets  about  the  labor  dispute   They  get  fired Issue  (same  as  Jefferson  Standard):  Were  the  employees  fired  for  cause  under   section  10(c)  of  the  NLRA  which  is  not  a  violation  of  section  8(a)1? Holding: Reasoning: Content  of  pamphlets  is  tied  to  labor  dispute Implies  that  the  disparagement  will  change  after  the  dispute ER  argues  no,  this  picture  is  so  damaging  disparagement   won't  change.   § Ask  for  support § Legal  Principle: There  has  to  be  a  sufficient  connection  between  disparagement  and  labor   dispute Eastex,  Inn.  V.  NLRB  (1978) Officer  of  local  801  started  distributing  a  newsletter Section  1  &  4:  Urged  EEs  to  join  the  union Section  2:  Encouraged  workers  to  oppose  state  right-­‐to-­‐work  statute Section  3:  Tells  EEs  the  president  vetoed  the  minimum  wage  increase ER  said  you  can't  distribute  newsletters  at  work They  file  a  ULP Issue:  Is  the  refusal  of  distributing  the  newsletter  with  some  political  activity  a   violation  of  section  8(a)1? EE  argument:  Not  unlawful,  violent,  breach  of  contract,  disloyal ER  argument:  Much  narrower  view  of  mutual  aid  &  protection Section  1&4  is  okay,  but  political  advocacy  is  not  MA&P Political  action  &  right-­‐to  work  not  kosher § ER  can't  do  anything  about  it § Holding:  Mention  of  political  action  &  right-­‐to-­‐work  law  was  protected  under   section  7  of  the  NLRA Reasoning: Relates  to  EEs  interests  as  EEs  -­‐ super  broad  reading Sec  2  (NLRA  -­‐ definition  of  EE)  is  designed  to  help  all  employees,   don't  have  to  have  same  employer Shall  include  any  EE  and  will  not  be  limited  to  the  EEs  of  a   particular  ER Broader  than  the  particular  employment  relationship § They  help  EEs  who  may  be  affected  by  right-­‐to-­‐work  or  min  wage   laws They  want  to  change  the  labor  market,  the  industry § 74th  Congress  knew  labor  push  beyond  immediate  employment  context,   and  expected  labor  to  use  a  variety  of  tools  to  advocate  for  their  well-­‐ being   (1930s,  New  Deal  congress) § Limit  depending  on  the  advocacy § Let  the  Board  decide  (court  of  appeals  and  SCOTUS  can  still   overturn) § Minimum  wages  have  an  affect  in  bargaining If  the  floor  on  negotiations  goes  up,  that  reverberates  and  helps  the   union § General  Council  Memo Similar  situation  as  Eastex,  but  this  time  about  immigration  laws General  Council  of  Board  sends  a  memo  saying  this  does  count  as  mutual  aid   and  protection Section  2's  broad  definition Congress's  broad  reading  of  mutual  aid  and  protection  -­‐ solidarity  as  a  key   issue Advocacy  is  connected  as  long  as  there's  a  direct  nexus  to  employee   working  conditions Immigration  policies  proposed  at  the  time  were  sufficiently  connected  to   working  conditions Threat  of  influx  of  foreign  engineers § Eastex,  Inn.  V.  NLRB  (1978) Officer  of  local  801  started  distributing  a  newsletter Section  1  &  4:  Urged  EEs  to  join  the  union Section  2:  Encouraged  workers  to  oppose  state  right-­‐to-­‐work  statute Section  3:  Tells  EEs  the  president  vetoed  the  minimum  wage  increase ER  said  you  can't  distribute  newsletters  at  work They  file  a  ULP Issue:  Is  the  refusal  of  distributing  the  newsletter  with  some  political  activity  a   violation  of  section  8(a)1? EE  argument:  Not  unlawful,  violent,  breach  of  contract,  disloyal ER  argument:  Much  narrower  view  of  mutual  aid  &  protection Section  1&4  is  okay,  but  political  advocacy  is  not  MA&P Political  action  &  right-­‐to  work  not  kosher § ER  can't  do  anything  about  it § Holding:  Mention  of  political  action  &  right-­‐to-­‐work  law  was  protected  under   section  7  of  the  NLRA Reasoning: Relates  to  EEs  interests  as  EEs  -­‐ super  broad  reading Sec  2  (NLRA  -­‐ definition  of  EE)  is  designed  to  help  all  employees,   don't  have  to  have  same  employer Shall  include  any  EE  and  will  not  be  limited  to  the  EEs  of  a   particular  ER Broader  than  the  particular  employment  relationship § They  help  EEs  who  may  be  affected  by  right-­‐to-­‐work  or  min  wage   laws They  want  to  change  the  labor  market,  the  industry § 74th  Congress  knew  labor  push  beyond  immediate  employment  context,   and  expected  labor  to  use  a  variety  of  tools  to  advocate  for  their  well-­‐ being   (1930s,  New  Deal  congress) § Limit  depending  on  the  advocacy § Let  the  Board  decide  (court  of  appeals  and  SCOTUS  can  still   overturn) § Minimum  wages  have  an  affect  in  bargaining If  the  floor  on  negotiations  goes  up,  that  reverberates  and  helps  the   union § General  Council  Memo Similar  situation  as  Eastex,  but  this  time  about  immigration  laws General  Council  of  Board  sends  a  memo  saying  this  does  count  as  mutual  aid   and  protection Section  2's  broad  definition Congress's  broad  reading  of  mutual  aid  and  protection  -­‐ solidarity  as  a  key   issue Advocacy  is  connected  as  long  as  there's  a  direct  nexus  to  employee   working  conditions Immigration  policies  proposed  at  the  time  were  sufficiently  connected  to   working  conditions Threat  of  influx  of  foreign  engineers § Prelim  1  Review Friday,  September   29,  2017 11:35  AM
background image The  Common  Law   Historical  Framework Unions  didn't  succeed  until  1870's  Knights  of  Labor Against  strikes  on  principle,  engaged  in  cooperative  negotiation  (not  CB),   admitted  skilled  workers,  manual  laborers  (farmers  etc.),  non-­‐workers   (lawyers  etc.) Biggest  success  came  from  Jay  Gould  railroad  strike  for  discrimination   against  strikers  (1885) Huge  surge  in  membership,  huge  decline  bc  inexperienced  leadership  &   different  interests AFL  w  Gompers  at  the  headed,  founded  as  defensive  measure.  Job  &  Wage   Consciousness  -­‐ increase  bargaining  power  in  workplce Judicial  Response  to  Labor  Disputes Criminal  Conspiracy Law's  original  response  treated  groups  of  craftsmen  as  criminal  conspiracy Philadelphia  Cordwainers  (Commonwealth  v.  Pullis) Philadelphia  Mayor's  Court Local  decision Facts Shoe  makers  would  only  work  at  wages  higher  than  usual,   tried  to  stop  others  from  accepting  lower  rates  (threats,  menaces,  and   other  unlawful  means) Wouldn't  work  for  someone  who  employed  non-­‐union  workers Issue Should  workers  be  allowed  to  set  their  own  prices  and  so  influence  the   market? Holding/decision Defendants  found  guilty,  fined  $8.00  each  (slap  on  the  wrist) Case  was  more  about  setting  precedent  than  punishment § Reasoning Levy  says  the  free  market  is  "natural,"  workers  setting  their  own  rates  is   unnatural,  unfair  -­‐    supply  and  demand  vs.  arbitrary  prices Hurts  people  who  try  to  participate  in  the  free  market  -­‐ "against  the   public  welfare" § Unions  force  people  to  keep  striking,  even  if  they'd  want  to  work  for   cheaper Rule/Legal  Principle Spirit  of  '76s  -­‐ contrasts  theme  of    "general  and  individual  liberty"  from   constitution Judicial  Response  to  Labor  Disputes Criminal  conspiracy Courts  treat  unions  as  criminal  conspiracies Philadelphia  Cordwainers  (1806) § Emergence  of  ends-­‐means  doctrine Courts  more  favorable  -­‐ it's  about  whether  what  the  union  does  is   threatening Overturned  Cordwainers,  says  unions  are  chill  unless  they  cause   physical  harm § Commonwealth  v.  Hunt  (1842) The  Labor  Injunction Courts  issued  injunctions  of  union  activity  to  restrain  strikes  and  boycotts Vegelahn  v.  Guntner  (1896) Vegelahn  v.  Guntner  (1896) Facts:   People  are  picketing,  putting  pressure  on  employers,  stop  everyone  going   in Want  ER  to  feel  pressure,  give  in  to  demands  of  higher  wages Procedural  Posture: ER  (Vegelahn)  asks  for  preliminary  injunction  to  stop  picketing Judge  grants  it,  broadly  worded § 1. Case  is  heard  on  merits  (by  Holmes) Also  grants  injunction  for  employer Only  prevents  threats  of  harm,  physical  interference,  contract   interference  (not  peaceful  picketing) § 2. State  goes  to  state  supreme  court,  Judge  Allen  writes  majority  opinion,   over-­‐ruling  Holmes  and  re-­‐installing  the  broader  injunction 3. Holding: First  injunction  was  right Reasoning Allen  (majority) Picketing  &  protesting  prevents  people  from  entering  the  business,   harder  for  business  to  carry  on  as  usual,  disrupts  market § Contract  Rights  -­‐ Constitutional Interferes  with  right  of  ER  to  hire  whomever  they  want Same  for  EE,  right  to  work  where  they  want § Uses  Sherry  v.  Perkins  -­‐ precedent Picketing  can  lead  to  intimidation  of  other  EEs,  leading  to   violence  (even  if  it  starts  peaceful) § Private  nuisance  (tort),  violates  the  common  law § Holmes'  Dissent: Argues  "Some  intentional  infliction  of  temporal  damage  is  justified" Allen  talks  about  temporal  damage,  usually  illegal  but  there  are   exceptions § Uses  an  analogy  of  business  competition Small  town  with  one  store,  can  only  handle  one  store  (customer   base),  new  business  comes  into  town,  puts  the  old  one  out  of   business.  There's  no  law  against  that.  People  are  pissed  but  it   happens. § Free  competition  is  worth  more  to  society  than  it  costs § Two  businesses  competing  =  union  v.  employers They're  both  trying  to  improve  their  economic  position,  but   by  different  means,  so  they  should  be  allowed  to  compete § Free-­‐market  viewpoint Allen  is  supporting  the  status  quo  and  calling  it  the  free  market,  but   it's  not There  are  inherent  imbalances  of  power § Judicial  Response  to  Protective  Labor  Legislation Voters  pressured  legislators  to  start  passing  laws  to  protect  EEs  (19th-­‐20th  c) Those  laws  are  challenged  in  court Starts  with  someone  saying  "this  law  is  affecting  me,  and  it's   unconstitutional" Federal  Court  System US  District  Courts Lowest  level,  collects  case  facts  &  makes  decision US  Courts  of  Appeals Reviews  District  Court  decisions Broken  into  circuits US  Supreme  Court  (for  states,  just  bc  it  says  Supreme  doesn't  mean  it's  the   highest  one) Can  review  U.S.  Court  of  Appeals'  decision They  have  the  discretion  to  take  whichever  cases  they  want  from  circuits Can  review  decisions  of  highest  state  courts  if they  involve  federal  issues US  Constitution  or  federal  statute § Legislative  +  Judicial  Branches Constitutional  challenges Supreme  Court  has  final  word Statutory  Interpretation  challenges Congress  has  final  word Lochner  v.  NY  (1905)  US  Supreme  Court Issue:  Bakery  EEs  can't  work  more  than  60  hours  a  week,  10  a  day.  Violate  14th   Amendment  (due  process)? Why  would  NY  pass  the  law?   Health  concern  for  bakers,  long  hours  in  conditions  potentially   detrimental  to  health § Hours  &  public  health,  bakers  make  a  public  good  (bread).  Working   more  may  hinder  the  quality  of  that § Legal  Question:  Did  the  NY  law  setting  a  60-­‐hour  maximum  work-­‐week  for   bakers  violate  the  14th  Amendment? Holding:  Violated  14th  Amendment,  Individuals  can't  be  deprived  of  life,  liberty   (to  contract),  property  without  due  process No  state  can  interfere  with  liberty  unless  it's  a  correct  exercise  of  police   powers Law  interferes  w  EEs'  freedom  to  make  their  own  contracts Police  power  =  state  power  to  intervene  with  safety,  health,  morals,  and  general   welfare Reasoning: We  don't  buy  the  link  between  hours,  baker  health,  and  public  health Interfering  with  right  to  make  contract  of  ER  and  EE,  protected  by  14th   Amendment   No  reason  workers  can't  handle  their  own  contracting "There  must  be  more  than  the  mere  fact  of  the  possible  existence   of  some  unhealthiness…" § Holmes'  Dissent: We  should  have  more  respect  for  legislative  process/voters The  people  know  what  they  want § Usury  laws,  interfered  with  peoples  lives  &  freedom  to  contract  -­‐ approved  as  constitutional,  proper  use  of  police  powers Government  limits  amount  of  interest  charged  on  a  loan Regulating  lotteries Sunday  Laws  -­‐ no  contracts  can  be  made  on  Sunday § Liberty  is  perverted  when  it  doesn't  let  legislative  majorities  decide  public   interest  at  a  historical  moment Holmes  thinks  the  courts  are  legislating,  which  they  shouldn't  be § Adkins  v.  Children's  Hospital  (1923)  US  Supreme  Court Facts: D.C.  legislators  use  police  powers  to  require  a  base  minimum  wage  for   women  workers Morals:  Low  wages  drives  women  to  prostitution Issue:  Is  the  D.C.  law  mandating  a  minimum  wage  for  women  (children  too,  but   dwai)  infringing  the  5th/14th  Amendment,  depriving  liberty  without  proper  use   of  police  powers Holding:  Yup Procedural  Posture: First  Case: Appellee  is  the  children's  Hospital Says  women  are  happy  with  their  wages § Adkins  wins,  injunction  is  not  granted § Second  Case: Appellee  is  woman  who  lost  her  job  at  a  hotel  because  of  wage  hike § US  District  court CH  (p)  v.  A  (d) Plaintiff  v.  Defendant § Court  of  Appeals CH  (appellant)  v.  A  (appellee,  respondent)  -­‐ since  A  won  last  time § CH  wins § US  Supreme  Court A  (appellant/petitioner)  v.  CH  (appellee,  respondent) § Reasoning: (1)  Adair  &  Coppage  define  liberty  as  liberty  to  contract Adair  v.  US  -­‐ person  has  right  to  sell  his/her  labor § Coppage  v.  Kansas  -­‐ right  to  make  contracts  to  get  money,  can't   interfere  with  this  liberty § Sometimes  liberty  to  contract  can  be  interfered  with  -­‐ due  process The  government  is  just  regulating  itself Exceptions (2)  Type  1:  Munn  v.  Illinois  -­‐ statutes  fixing  rates  &  charges  exacted   by  businesses  that  serve  a  public  interest Not  applicable  bc  Munn  is  a  public  interest,  Adkins  is  private   bc  it's  a  private  contract § (3)  Type  2:  Atkins  v.  Kansas;  Heim  v.  McCall;  Ellis  v.  US  -­‐ Laws   regulated  affairs  between  gov't  and  business  (hours,  wages,  etc.) Not  applicable  bc  since  the  gov't  is  one  of  the  parties  to  the   contract,  police  powers  are  valid  since  the  gov't  is  policing   itself When  the  gov't  partners  w  something  else,  can't  work  more   than  8-­‐hour  days  (yes,  police  power  gucci) § (4)  Type  3:  Statutes  concerning  the  circumstances  of  payment   (methods,  time,  etc.) Not  applicable,  didn't  establish  the  amount being  paid McLean  v.  Arkansas  -­‐ miner  employers  need  to  pay  for   amount  mined  before  screening  (refining) SC  says  that's  cool ® Knoxville  v.  Harbison  -­‐ pay  in  cash Eric  v.  Williams  -­‐ time  pay § (5)  Type  4:  Statutes  fixing  hours  of  labor  (max-­‐hour  laws) Court  says  law  set  on  health  needs Miners,  smelters,  some  manufacturers ® Holden  v.  Hardy,  Supreme  court  case,  Utah  law Was  constitutional,  police  powers  was  legit  bc   there  was  a  real  health  risk ® Lochner  wasn't  constitutional  bc  baker's  conditions   weren't  that  bad,  and  the  long  hours  weren't  a  proven   health  risk ® Wages  are  more  central  to  the  contract  than  hours,  limiting   them  is  more  harmful Only  focused  on  specific  industries  (not  areas),  DC  is  for   everybody § (6)  19th  Amendment  (women's  suffrage)  -­‐ that  means  they  don’t  need   special  protection (7)  Law  harms  ERs,  puts  an  unfair  burden  on  them (8)  Law  is  vague,  can't  regulate  the  wages*  (find  this  out  from  someone   else) Dissent: Taft Wages  &  hours  can  be  equally  detrimental,  they're  multiplied   together § 19th  Amendment  doesn't  get  rid  of  physical  weakness,  etc.  so   women  still  need  protection § Inequality  in  bargaining  power  ("not  all  workers  are  upon  the  full   level  of  the  quality  of  choice  with  their  employer  and  they're  prone   to  accept  pretty  much  whatever  is  offered") § About  the  Type  3  precedent,  laws  that  affect  how someone  is  paid   serve  the  same  goal  as  minimum  wage  laws Consistent  with  the  means-­‐end  doctrine § Not  function  of  court  to  carry  out  economic  views § Holmes 5th  Amendment  too  vague,  it  doesn't  say  "liberty  to  contract" § Usury  laws,  etc.  violate  liberty  to  contract  but  were  all  upheld Agrees  w  the  type  3  precedents Employers  of  sailors  can't  pay  them  before  the  leave  port § Federal  Courts Appellee/Respondent Won  immediately  below Appellant/Petitioner Lost  immediately  below Legal  question What  law,  whom  does  it  affect What  does  it  violate  (Constitution?  Which  part?) What  does  it  deprive  someone  of  (liberty?) West  Coast  Hotel  v.  Parrish  (1937) Facts: State's  kept  legislating  minimum  wage  laws  even  though  Adkins  had   already  lost,  voter  pressure Given  the  Great  Depression,  what  constitutes  proper  use  of  police  powers   may  be  shifting Putting  money  in  workers'  pockets  will  stimulate  the  economy § Legal  Question:  Was  Washington  State's  minimum  wage  law  for  women  an   unconstitutional  interference  with  the  14th  Amendment's  protection  of  liberty? Pretty  much  same  question  as  Adkins Holding:  It  was  constitutional,  due  process,  proper  use  of  police  powers Overturned  Adkins  -­‐ big  deal Reasoning:   Lines  of  reasoning  are  the  same  from  Adkins,  but  switch  sides. The  Great  Depression  is  a  game  changer,  the  only  major  difference The  switch  in  time  that  saved  9 FDR  passed  laws,  court  kept  overturning  them,  threatened  to  add  more   justices  in  favor  of  New  Deal Justice  Roberts  switches  and  joins  the  majority NLRB  v.  Jones  &  Laughlin  Steel  Co.  (1937) When  the  federal  legislature  was  trying  to  pass  laws,  they  relied  on  the   Commerce  Clause  to  justify  legislative  acts  bc  Congress  has  to  find  something  in   the  Constitution  that  gives  it  the  power  to  legislate Facts:   10  EEs  were  fired  for  trying  to  organize  (right  protected  by  the  NLRA) Co.  challenges  NLRA's  constitutionality,  Commerce  Clause Legal  Question:  Did  the  US  Congress  exceed  its  Constitutional  authority   pursuant  to  the  Commerce  Clause  when  it  enacted  the  NLRA Holding:  Nah  we  gucci Reasoning: Commerce  Clause  authority  is  broad Congress  has  power  to  regulate  things  that  might  affect  commerce § NLRA  is  regulating  activities  that  may  affect  interstate  commerce  (strikes,   boycotts,  etc.) NLRA  preserves  freedom  of  contract  more  than  burdens  it Gov't  interference  through  NLRA  (allowing  CB)  helps  equalize   bargaining  power § Modern  (New  Deal)  Labor  Legislation Beginning  of  labor  law  as  we  know  it Norris  LaGuardia  Act  of  1932 Outlaws  yellow-­‐dog  contracts  (stop  people  from  joining  unions) Outlaws  federal  injunctions  against  non-­‐violent  labor  disputes National  Labor  Relations  Act  1935 Prohibited  employer  behavior  only Taft  Hartley  Act Amendment  to  NLRA NLRA  gave  unions  too  much  power  since  it  only  imposed  restrictions  on   employers For  every  statute  we  should  ask Who  is  covered? Threshold  issue,  we  need  to  see  if  this  holds  true  first What  protections  are  provided? How  is  it  enforced? For  every  statutory  case: Consider  relevant  rule(s)/rubric(s)  for  similar  cases Cases  are  similar  if  they  have  a  similar  legal  issue/question NLRA:  Who's  covered? Interstate  commerce Jones  &  Laughlin  Steel ER/EE  relationship  required  (NLRA  Sec.  2) Look  at  p.  50  of  stat  sup Who's  not: Gov't  employees Agriculture  &  Domestic  Service  workers Supervisors Independent  contractors NLRB  v.  United  Insurance  (1968,  SCOTUS) Facts: Debit  agents  work  at  an  insurance  company,  they  organize  a  union  &  get  a   majority  to  do  so,  but  they're  independent  contractors Legal  Question:  Are  debit  agents  employees  with  the  right  to  organize,  or  are   they  independent  contractors  under  NLRA  Section  2  (3)? Holding:  They  are  EEs Procedural  Posture: NLRB  says  they're  EEs,  certified  to  form  a  union Court  of  Appeals  declines  Board's  bargaining  order Supreme  Court  Reverses Reasoning: Agents  are  not  independent,  have  no  initiative  or  decision  making   authority  that  contractors  usually  have New  decisive  factors: Agents  don't  operate  their  own  business,  but  perform  essential   functions  for  the  company § Agents  were  trained  by  company § Do  business  under  company  name  w  assistance  from  company § "Agent's  Commission  Plan"  maintained  unilaterally  by  ER § Account  to  company  for  funds  they  collect § Receive  company  benefits § Have  a  permanent  working  arrangement § Roadway  Package  System  Inc.  (NLRB  decision  1998) Issue:  Are  the  drivers  at  Roadway's  Ontario  and  Panoma  Terminals  EEs  or  ICs   under  the  NLRA Holding:  The  drivers  at  Roadway's  Ontario  and  Panoma  Terminals  are   employees,  not  ICs  under  the  NLRA Reasoning: They  receive  guidance/supervision  from  the  company  -­‐ how  they  should   dress,  conduct  deliveries,  etc. They  don't  operate  an  independent  business Their  trucks  say  Roadway,  they  can't  use  them  to  deliver  for  another   business § Do  an  essential  task  for  normal  operations  of  the  business Receive  training  from  company  upon  employment Regardless  of  what  they  do,  they  have  a  fixed  pay  (no  gain  or  loss  based   on  commission) Entrepreneurial  Opportunity,  are  they  in  business  for  themselves § Judicial  Intervention  (in  Labor  Disputes) Judicial  response  to  Legislative  Intervention Before  New  Deal Lochner  v.  NY  (1905) Adkins  v.  Children's  Hospital  (1923) After  New  Deal West  Coast  Hotel  (1937) Jones  &  Laughlin  Steel  (1937) Legislative  Intervention  (Modern  Labor  Legislation) Norris  LaGuardia  Act  of  1932 National  Labor  Relations  Act  of  1935 Statutory,  looking  at  interpreting  what  Congress  meant  when  it  legislated Legislative  history  (hearings,  debates,   § Factors:  Totality  of  the  Circumstances  Test  (5  factors) Independent  business?  (Yes  -­‐ IC,  No  -­‐ EE) Significant  entrepreneurial  opportunity  for  gain  or  loss?  (Yes  -­‐ IC,  No  -­‐ EE) Prior  training  or  experience  required?  (Yes  -­‐ EE,  No  -­‐ IC) Performing  essential  functions?  (Yes  -­‐ EE,  No  -­‐ IC) Receive  significant  guidance,  supervision,  assistance  from  company   manager/supervisor  (Yes  -­‐ EE,  No  -­‐ IC) Dial-­‐A-­‐Mattress  (NLRB  1998) Workers  were  found  to  be  ICs No  training No  requirements  about  how  the  trucks  were  used Drivers  owned  multiple  trucks,  hired  other  helpers  &  drivers They  could  deliver  for  anyone  except  Dial's  competitors,  etc. Look  at  the  facts  through  the  lens  of  the  Totality  test Look  at  the  legal  question Teaching  Assistants/Students As  board's  constitution  of  members  changes,  certain  issues  that  are  more  politicized   than  others  flip  back  and  forth Football  Players  at  Northwestern Northwestern  Athletes  wanted  bargaining  power University  challenged  that  claim,  said  they  weren't  employees  &  weren't   covered  under  NLRA NLRA  Section  7 7:  EEs  have  the  right  to  engage  in  concerted  activity  for  mutual  aid  or  protection This  is  the  big  right  that  the  law  gave  employees 8a1:  ERs  cannot  interfere  with  Sec.  7  rights Elements EEs Concerted Protected Mutual  aid  or  protection What  is  concerted  activity? City  disposal Usually,  more  than  one NLRB  v.  City  Disposal  (1984) Facts: James  Brown's  truck  breaks  down,  is  told  to  drive  No.  244  (has  trouble   breaking)  by  Jasmund Brown  refuses  and  doesn't  cite  Article  XXI  directly  (EEs  not  required   to  operate  dangerous  equipment) § Refuses  to  drive  the  truck,  is  discharged  after  Robert  Mandary  tells  him  to   go  home  for  refusal  to  drive Brown    files  case  under  Sec.  7 ER  says  brown  was  acting  alone,  not  concerted § Union  declined  Brown's  grievance § This  is  a  unionized  workplace,  they  have  a  CB  agreement  and  a  contract   (see  Article  XXI  above)  (footnote  1,  p.  193) Issue Did  an  individual  engage  in  concerted  activity  under  NLRA  Sec  7  by   invoking  a  CB  agreement  such  that  it  was  a  Sec  8a1  violation  for  the   employer  to  fire  him? Holding: The  individual's  concerted  activity  was  in  accordance  with  the  NLRA Procedural  Posture: ALJ  found  Brown's  refusal  to  be  covered  under  Sec  7 NLRB  agrees  with  ALJ,  Brown  should  be  reinstated  with  backpay Court  of  Appeals  reverses,  Brown  acted  on  his  own Reasoning: Plain  language  of  the  statute Section  7  says  joining  and  assisting a  labor  organization  is  engaging   in  concerted  activity  through  participation  in  that  org § Conduct  by  an  individual  that  comes  from  group  activity  is  concerted, Board  determines  this  through  the  "Interboro  Doctrine,"  under   which  an  individual's  assertion  of  a  right  that  has  been  collectively   bargained  for  is  recognized  as  concerted  activity § One  person  invoking  a  provision  of  a  contract  is  invoking  the  CB   process  that  led  to  it § Article  XXI  of  the  contract,  can't  use  dangerous  equipment § Upholding  a  CBA  will  affect  the  rights  of  others  who  might  invoke  that   right Collective  affect  reasoning § Congressional  intent Congress  wanted  to  promote  concerted  activity  to  offset  inequality   of  bargaining  power § Consistent  with  the  purposes  of  the  act § Board  deference The  board  is  reasonable,  defer  to  it's  reasoning  when  so § NLRA  Section  7  and  8a  ULPs What  is  protected  concerted activity Concerted=group  (2  or  more) One  EE  engages  in  concerted  activity  when: Invokes  a  right  from  the  CBA  (City  Disposal) § Employee  wants  to  induce  group  activity § Acts  as  a  representative  of  a  group  decision § What  is  protected concerted  activity Spontaneous  walkout  of  unorganized  EEs  due  to  extreme  cold  was   protected  (Washington  Aluminum) Washington  Aluminum Facts: Seven  EEs  worked  in  a  machine  shop,  wasn't  insulated  (no  heat) Non-­‐union  workers § Jan  5  weather  was  super  cold  bc  furnace  broke  down One  EE  went  into  the  foreman's  quarters,  usually  warmer,  cold § EEs  huddled  together  for  warmth,  one  repeated  foreman's  words  "if  you   had  any  guts  you'd  go  home" They  leave,  they're  fired Issue:  Did  the  non-­‐unionized  workers  engage  in  protected  concerted  activity   under  Section  7  by  walking  out  such  that  it  was  a  violation  of  Section  8a1  for  ER   to  fire  them? Holding:  This  was  a  violation Reasoning: Grew  out  of  a  "labor  dispute"  Section  2(9)  due  to  condition  of   employment  (cold) Section  7  is  broad  to  protect  concerted  activity Unorganized  employees  are  protected  too § Narrow  reasoning  would  frustrate  the  purpose  of  the  act,  to  protect   the  right  of  workers  to  work  together  to  offset  bargaining  power § Section  7  doesn't  cover  everything,  but  the  EEs  didn't  do  these   exceptions: Unlawful  activity,  violence,  breach  of  contract,  disloyal  actions § Jefferson  Standard  (1953) Facts: Impasse  in  renewal  of  CBA  between  Jefferson  and  Local  1229 Union  pickets  peacefully  -­‐ trying  to  put  pressure  on  negotiations Starts  handing  out  handbills  attacking  quality  of  Jefferson's  programming 10  EEs  are  fired Issue:  Were  the  technicians  fired  for  "cause"  because  of  "disloyalty"  under   section  10(c)  of  NLRA  -­‐ Taft  Hartley  -­‐ which  excludes  them  from  sec  7  protection   and  is  not  a  violation  of  sec  8(a)1 Is  the  firing  of  the  technicians  a  sec  8(a)1  violation,  or  is  it  a  for  cause   dismissal  for  disloyalty? Holding:  The  company  is  justified  in  firing  these  employees  for  "cause"  because   of  "disloyalty"  under  Section  10(c)  of  NLRA,  excluding  EEs  from  sec  7  protection Reasoning: Handbills  didn't  talk  about  labor  at  all  in  disparagement  of  the  service Attack  made  no  reference  to  wages,  hours,  working  conditions § Attached  policies  made  by  management,  not  technicians § Didn't  ask  for  any  support  or  sympathy § Technicians  attacked  public  policies  of  company  unrelated  to   dispute § Needs  to  be  temporal  labor  dispute,  public  needs  to  understand  it  will  be   resolved  at  the  end  of  the  dispute Since  there's  no  mention  of  union  activity,  the  public  can't  know   this,  not  clear  disparaging  terms  would  change  if  labor  conditions   improve § Under  section  10(c),  EEs  can  be  discharged  for  "cause"  by  disloyalty Acted  counter  to  the  interests  of  company  they  were  paid  to  uphold § Purpose  of  NLRA  is  to  support  peace  and  stability,  technicians  did  neither Not  the  purpose  of  the  NLRA  for  ER  to  finance  these  actions § Jimmy  John's Facts: Jimmy  John's  workers  don’t  get  paid  sick  days Some  hand  out  pamphlets  about  the  labor  dispute   They  get  fired Issue  (same  as  Jefferson  Standard):  Were  the  employees  fired  for  cause  under   section  10(c)  of  the  NLRA  which  is  not  a  violation  of  section  8(a)1? Holding: Reasoning: Content  of  pamphlets  is  tied  to  labor  dispute Implies  that  the  disparagement  will  change  after  the  dispute ER  argues  no,  this  picture  is  so  damaging  disparagement   won't  change.   § Ask  for  support § Legal  Principle: There  has  to  be  a  sufficient  connection  between  disparagement  and  labor   dispute Eastex,  Inn.  V.  NLRB  (1978) Officer  of  local  801  started  distributing  a  newsletter Section  1  &  4:  Urged  EEs  to  join  the  union Section  2:  Encouraged  workers  to  oppose  state  right-­‐to-­‐work  statute Section  3:  Tells  EEs  the  president  vetoed  the  minimum  wage  increase ER  said  you  can't  distribute  newsletters  at  work They  file  a  ULP Issue:  Is  the  refusal  of  distributing  the  newsletter  with  some  political  activity  a   violation  of  section  8(a)1? EE  argument:  Not  unlawful,  violent,  breach  of  contract,  disloyal ER  argument:  Much  narrower  view  of  mutual  aid  &  protection Section  1&4  is  okay,  but  political  advocacy  is  not  MA&P Political  action  &  right-­‐to  work  not  kosher § ER  can't  do  anything  about  it § Holding:  Mention  of  political  action  &  right-­‐to-­‐work  law  was  protected  under   section  7  of  the  NLRA Reasoning: Relates  to  EEs  interests  as  EEs  -­‐ super  broad  reading Sec  2  (NLRA  -­‐ definition  of  EE)  is  designed  to  help  all  employees,   don't  have  to  have  same  employer Shall  include  any  EE  and  will  not  be  limited  to  the  EEs  of  a   particular  ER Broader  than  the  particular  employment  relationship § They  help  EEs  who  may  be  affected  by  right-­‐to-­‐work  or  min  wage   laws They  want  to  change  the  labor  market,  the  industry § 74th  Congress  knew  labor  push  beyond  immediate  employment  context,   and  expected  labor  to  use  a  variety  of  tools  to  advocate  for  their  well-­‐ being   (1930s,  New  Deal  congress) § Limit  depending  on  the  advocacy § Let  the  Board  decide  (court  of  appeals  and  SCOTUS  can  still   overturn) § Minimum  wages  have  an  affect  in  bargaining If  the  floor  on  negotiations  goes  up,  that  reverberates  and  helps  the   union § General  Council  Memo Similar  situation  as  Eastex,  but  this  time  about  immigration  laws General  Council  of  Board  sends  a  memo  saying  this  does  count  as  mutual  aid   and  protection Section  2's  broad  definition Congress's  broad  reading  of  mutual  aid  and  protection  -­‐ solidarity  as  a  key   issue Advocacy  is  connected  as  long  as  there's  a  direct  nexus  to  employee   working  conditions Immigration  policies  proposed  at  the  time  were  sufficiently  connected  to   working  conditions Threat  of  influx  of  foreign  engineers § Eastex,  Inn.  V.  NLRB  (1978) Officer  of  local  801  started  distributing  a  newsletter Section  1  &  4:  Urged  EEs  to  join  the  union Section  2:  Encouraged  workers  to  oppose  state  right-­‐to-­‐work  statute Section  3:  Tells  EEs  the  president  vetoed  the  minimum  wage  increase ER  said  you  can't  distribute  newsletters  at  work They  file  a  ULP Issue:  Is  the  refusal  of  distributing  the  newsletter  with  some  political  activity  a   violation  of  section  8(a)1? EE  argument:  Not  unlawful,  violent,  breach  of  contract,  disloyal ER  argument:  Much  narrower  view  of  mutual  aid  &  protection Section  1&4  is  okay,  but  political  advocacy  is  not  MA&P Political  action  &  right-­‐to  work  not  kosher § ER  can't  do  anything  about  it § Holding:  Mention  of  political  action  &  right-­‐to-­‐work  law  was  protected  under   section  7  of  the  NLRA Reasoning: Relates  to  EEs  interests  as  EEs  -­‐ super  broad  reading Sec  2  (NLRA  -­‐ definition  of  EE)  is  designed  to  help  all  employees,   don't  have  to  have  same  employer Shall  include  any  EE  and  will  not  be  limited  to  the  EEs  of  a   particular  ER Broader  than  the  particular  employment  relationship § They  help  EEs  who  may  be  affected  by  right-­‐to-­‐work  or  min  wage   laws They  want  to  change  the  labor  market,  the  industry § 74th  Congress  knew  labor  push  beyond  immediate  employment  context,   and  expected  labor  to  use  a  variety  of  tools  to  advocate  for  their  well-­‐ being   (1930s,  New  Deal  congress) § Limit  depending  on  the  advocacy § Let  the  Board  decide  (court  of  appeals  and  SCOTUS  can  still   overturn) § Minimum  wages  have  an  affect  in  bargaining If  the  floor  on  negotiations  goes  up,  that  reverberates  and  helps  the   union § General  Council  Memo Similar  situation  as  Eastex,  but  this  time  about  immigration  laws General  Council  of  Board  sends  a  memo  saying  this  does  count  as  mutual  aid   and  protection Section  2's  broad  definition Congress's  broad  reading  of  mutual  aid  and  protection  -­‐ solidarity  as  a  key   issue Advocacy  is  connected  as  long  as  there's  a  direct  nexus  to  employee   working  conditions Immigration  policies  proposed  at  the  time  were  sufficiently  connected  to   working  conditions Threat  of  influx  of  foreign  engineers § Prelim  1  Review Friday,  September   29,  2017 11:35  AM
background image The  Common  Law   Historical  Framework Unions  didn't  succeed  until  1870's  Knights  of  Labor Against  strikes  on  principle,  engaged  in  cooperative  negotiation  (not  CB),   admitted  skilled  workers,  manual  laborers  (farmers  etc.),  non-­‐workers   (lawyers  etc.) Biggest  success  came  from  Jay  Gould  railroad  strike  for  discrimination   against  strikers  (1885) Huge  surge  in  membership,  huge  decline  bc  inexperienced  leadership  &   different  interests AFL  w  Gompers  at  the  headed,  founded  as  defensive  measure.  Job  &  Wage   Consciousness  -­‐ increase  bargaining  power  in  workplce Judicial  Response  to  Labor  Disputes Criminal  Conspiracy Law's  original  response  treated  groups  of  craftsmen  as  criminal  conspiracy Philadelphia  Cordwainers  (Commonwealth  v.  Pullis) Philadelphia  Mayor's  Court Local  decision Facts Shoe  makers  would  only  work  at  wages  higher  than  usual,   tried  to  stop  others  from  accepting  lower  rates  (threats,  menaces,  and   other  unlawful  means) Wouldn't  work  for  someone  who  employed  non-­‐union  workers Issue Should  workers  be  allowed  to  set  their  own  prices  and  so  influence  the   market? Holding/decision Defendants  found  guilty,  fined  $8.00  each  (slap  on  the  wrist) Case  was  more  about  setting  precedent  than  punishment § Reasoning Levy  says  the  free  market  is  "natural,"  workers  setting  their  own  rates  is   unnatural,  unfair  -­‐    supply  and  demand  vs.  arbitrary  prices Hurts  people  who  try  to  participate  in  the  free  market  -­‐ "against  the   public  welfare" § Unions  force  people  to  keep  striking,  even  if  they'd  want  to  work  for   cheaper Rule/Legal  Principle Spirit  of  '76s  -­‐ contrasts  theme  of    "general  and  individual  liberty"  from   constitution Judicial  Response  to  Labor  Disputes Criminal  conspiracy Courts  treat  unions  as  criminal  conspiracies Philadelphia  Cordwainers  (1806) § Emergence  of  ends-­‐means  doctrine Courts  more  favorable  -­‐ it's  about  whether  what  the  union  does  is   threatening Overturned  Cordwainers,  says  unions  are  chill  unless  they  cause   physical  harm § Commonwealth  v.  Hunt  (1842) The  Labor  Injunction Courts  issued  injunctions  of  union  activity  to  restrain  strikes  and  boycotts Vegelahn  v.  Guntner  (1896) Vegelahn  v.  Guntner  (1896) Facts:   People  are  picketing,  putting  pressure  on  employers,  stop  everyone  going   in Want  ER  to  feel  pressure,  give  in  to  demands  of  higher  wages Procedural  Posture: ER  (Vegelahn)  asks  for  preliminary  injunction  to  stop  picketing Judge  grants  it,  broadly  worded § 1. Case  is  heard  on  merits  (by  Holmes) Also  grants  injunction  for  employer Only  prevents  threats  of  harm,  physical  interference,  contract   interference  (not  peaceful  picketing) § 2. State  goes  to  state  supreme  court,  Judge  Allen  writes  majority  opinion,   over-­‐ruling  Holmes  and  re-­‐installing  the  broader  injunction 3. Holding: First  injunction  was  right Reasoning Allen  (majority) Picketing  &  protesting  prevents  people  from  entering  the  business,   harder  for  business  to  carry  on  as  usual,  disrupts  market § Contract  Rights  -­‐ Constitutional Interferes  with  right  of  ER  to  hire  whomever  they  want Same  for  EE,  right  to  work  where  they  want § Uses  Sherry  v.  Perkins  -­‐ precedent Picketing  can  lead  to  intimidation  of  other  EEs,  leading  to   violence  (even  if  it  starts  peaceful) § Private  nuisance  (tort),  violates  the  common  law § Holmes'  Dissent: Argues  "Some  intentional  infliction  of  temporal  damage  is  justified" Allen  talks  about  temporal  damage,  usually  illegal  but  there  are   exceptions § Uses  an  analogy  of  business  competition Small  town  with  one  store,  can  only  handle  one  store  (customer   base),  new  business  comes  into  town,  puts  the  old  one  out  of   business.  There's  no  law  against  that.  People  are  pissed  but  it   happens. § Free  competition  is  worth  more  to  society  than  it  costs § Two  businesses  competing  =  union  v.  employers They're  both  trying  to  improve  their  economic  position,  but   by  different  means,  so  they  should  be  allowed  to  compete § Free-­‐market  viewpoint Allen  is  supporting  the  status  quo  and  calling  it  the  free  market,  but   it's  not There  are  inherent  imbalances  of  power § Judicial  Response  to  Protective  Labor  Legislation Voters  pressured  legislators  to  start  passing  laws  to  protect  EEs  (19th-­‐20th  c) Those  laws  are  challenged  in  court Starts  with  someone  saying  "this  law  is  affecting  me,  and  it's   unconstitutional" Federal  Court  System US  District  Courts Lowest  level,  collects  case  facts  &  makes  decision US  Courts  of  Appeals Reviews  District  Court  decisions Broken  into  circuits US  Supreme  Court  (for  states,  just  bc  it  says  Supreme  doesn't  mean  it's  the   highest  one) Can  review  U.S.  Court  of  Appeals'  decision They  have  the  discretion  to  take  whichever  cases  they  want  from  circuits Can  review  decisions  of  highest  state  courts  if they  involve  federal  issues US  Constitution  or  federal  statute § Legislative  +  Judicial  Branches Constitutional  challenges Supreme  Court  has  final  word Statutory  Interpretation  challenges Congress  has  final  word Lochner  v.  NY  (1905)  US  Supreme  Court Issue:  Bakery  EEs  can't  work  more  than  60  hours  a  week,  10  a  day.  Violate  14th   Amendment  (due  process)? Why  would  NY  pass  the  law?   Health  concern  for  bakers,  long  hours  in  conditions  potentially   detrimental  to  health § Hours  &  public  health,  bakers  make  a  public  good  (bread).  Working   more  may  hinder  the  quality  of  that § Legal  Question:  Did  the  NY  law  setting  a  60-­‐hour  maximum  work-­‐week  for   bakers  violate  the  14th  Amendment? Holding:  Violated  14th  Amendment,  Individuals  can't  be  deprived  of  life,  liberty   (to  contract),  property  without  due  process No  state  can  interfere  with  liberty  unless  it's  a  correct  exercise  of  police   powers Law  interferes  w  EEs'  freedom  to  make  their  own  contracts Police  power  =  state  power  to  intervene  with  safety,  health,  morals,  and  general   welfare Reasoning: We  don't  buy  the  link  between  hours,  baker  health,  and  public  health Interfering  with  right  to  make  contract  of  ER  and  EE,  protected  by  14th   Amendment   No  reason  workers  can't  handle  their  own  contracting "There  must  be  more  than  the  mere  fact  of  the  possible  existence   of  some  unhealthiness…" § Holmes'  Dissent: We  should  have  more  respect  for  legislative  process/voters The  people  know  what  they  want § Usury  laws,  interfered  with  peoples  lives  &  freedom  to  contract  -­‐ approved  as  constitutional,  proper  use  of  police  powers Government  limits  amount  of  interest  charged  on  a  loan Regulating  lotteries Sunday  Laws  -­‐ no  contracts  can  be  made  on  Sunday § Liberty  is  perverted  when  it  doesn't  let  legislative  majorities  decide  public   interest  at  a  historical  moment Holmes  thinks  the  courts  are  legislating,  which  they  shouldn't  be § Adkins  v.  Children's  Hospital  (1923)  US  Supreme  Court Facts: D.C.  legislators  use  police  powers  to  require  a  base  minimum  wage  for   women  workers Morals:  Low  wages  drives  women  to  prostitution Issue:  Is  the  D.C.  law  mandating  a  minimum  wage  for  women  (children  too,  but   dwai)  infringing  the  5th/14th  Amendment,  depriving  liberty  without  proper  use   of  police  powers Holding:  Yup Procedural  Posture: First  Case: Appellee  is  the  children's  Hospital Says  women  are  happy  with  their  wages § Adkins  wins,  injunction  is  not  granted § Second  Case: Appellee  is  woman  who  lost  her  job  at  a  hotel  because  of  wage  hike § US  District  court CH  (p)  v.  A  (d) Plaintiff  v.  Defendant § Court  of  Appeals CH  (appellant)  v.  A  (appellee,  respondent)  -­‐ since  A  won  last  time § CH  wins § US  Supreme  Court A  (appellant/petitioner)  v.  CH  (appellee,  respondent) § Reasoning: (1)  Adair  &  Coppage  define  liberty  as  liberty  to  contract Adair  v.  US  -­‐ person  has  right  to  sell  his/her  labor § Coppage  v.  Kansas  -­‐ right  to  make  contracts  to  get  money,  can't   interfere  with  this  liberty § Sometimes  liberty  to  contract  can  be  interfered  with  -­‐ due  process The  government  is  just  regulating  itself Exceptions (2)  Type  1:  Munn  v.  Illinois  -­‐ statutes  fixing  rates  &  charges  exacted   by  businesses  that  serve  a  public  interest Not  applicable  bc  Munn  is  a  public  interest,  Adkins  is  private   bc  it's  a  private  contract § (3)  Type  2:  Atkins  v.  Kansas;  Heim  v.  McCall;  Ellis  v.  US  -­‐ Laws   regulated  affairs  between  gov't  and  business  (hours,  wages,  etc.) Not  applicable  bc  since  the  gov't  is  one  of  the  parties  to  the   contract,  police  powers  are  valid  since  the  gov't  is  policing   itself When  the  gov't  partners  w  something  else,  can't  work  more   than  8-­‐hour  days  (yes,  police  power  gucci) § (4)  Type  3:  Statutes  concerning  the  circumstances  of  payment   (methods,  time,  etc.) Not  applicable,  didn't  establish  the  amount being  paid McLean  v.  Arkansas  -­‐ miner  employers  need  to  pay  for   amount  mined  before  screening  (refining) SC  says  that's  cool ® Knoxville  v.  Harbison  -­‐ pay  in  cash Eric  v.  Williams  -­‐ time  pay § (5)  Type  4:  Statutes  fixing  hours  of  labor  (max-­‐hour  laws) Court  says  law  set  on  health  needs Miners,  smelters,  some  manufacturers ® Holden  v.  Hardy,  Supreme  court  case,  Utah  law Was  constitutional,  police  powers  was  legit  bc   there  was  a  real  health  risk ® Lochner  wasn't  constitutional  bc  baker's  conditions   weren't  that  bad,  and  the  long  hours  weren't  a  proven   health  risk ® Wages  are  more  central  to  the  contract  than  hours,  limiting   them  is  more  harmful Only  focused  on  specific  industries  (not  areas),  DC  is  for   everybody § (6)  19th  Amendment  (women's  suffrage)  -­‐ that  means  they  don’t  need   special  protection (7)  Law  harms  ERs,  puts  an  unfair  burden  on  them (8)  Law  is  vague,  can't  regulate  the  wages*  (find  this  out  from  someone   else) Dissent: Taft Wages  &  hours  can  be  equally  detrimental,  they're  multiplied   together § 19th  Amendment  doesn't  get  rid  of  physical  weakness,  etc.  so   women  still  need  protection § Inequality  in  bargaining  power  ("not  all  workers  are  upon  the  full   level  of  the  quality  of  choice  with  their  employer  and  they're  prone   to  accept  pretty  much  whatever  is  offered") § About  the  Type  3  precedent,  laws  that  affect  how someone  is  paid   serve  the  same  goal  as  minimum  wage  laws Consistent  with  the  means-­‐end  doctrine § Not  function  of  court  to  carry  out  economic  views § Holmes 5th  Amendment  too  vague,  it  doesn't  say  "liberty  to  contract" § Usury  laws,  etc.  violate  liberty  to  contract  but  were  all  upheld Agrees  w  the  type  3  precedents Employers  of  sailors  can't  pay  them  before  the  leave  port § Federal  Courts Appellee/Respondent Won  immediately  below Appellant/Petitioner Lost  immediately  below Legal  question What  law,  whom  does  it  affect What  does  it  violate  (Constitution?  Which  part?) What  does  it  deprive  someone  of  (liberty?) West  Coast  Hotel  v.  Parrish  (1937) Facts: State's  kept  legislating  minimum  wage  laws  even  though  Adkins  had   already  lost,  voter  pressure Given  the  Great  Depression,  what  constitutes  proper  use  of  police  powers   may  be  shifting Putting  money  in  workers'  pockets  will  stimulate  the  economy § Legal  Question:  Was  Washington  State's  minimum  wage  law  for  women  an   unconstitutional  interference  with  the  14th  Amendment's  protection  of  liberty? Pretty  much  same  question  as  Adkins Holding:  It  was  constitutional,  due  process,  proper  use  of  police  powers Overturned  Adkins  -­‐ big  deal Reasoning:   Lines  of  reasoning  are  the  same  from  Adkins,  but  switch  sides. The  Great  Depression  is  a  game  changer,  the  only  major  difference The  switch  in  time  that  saved  9 FDR  passed  laws,  court  kept  overturning  them,  threatened  to  add  more   justices  in  favor  of  New  Deal Justice  Roberts  switches  and  joins  the  majority NLRB  v.  Jones  &  Laughlin  Steel  Co.  (1937) When  the  federal  legislature  was  trying  to  pass  laws,  they  relied  on  the   Commerce  Clause  to  justify  legislative  acts  bc  Congress  has  to  find  something  in   the  Constitution  that  gives  it  the  power  to  legislate Facts:   10  EEs  were  fired  for  trying  to  organize  (right  protected  by  the  NLRA) Co.  challenges  NLRA's  constitutionality,  Commerce  Clause Legal  Question:  Did  the  US  Congress  exceed  its  Constitutional  authority   pursuant  to  the  Commerce  Clause  when  it  enacted  the  NLRA Holding:  Nah  we  gucci Reasoning: Commerce  Clause  authority  is  broad Congress  has  power  to  regulate  things  that  might  affect  commerce § NLRA  is  regulating  activities  that  may  affect  interstate  commerce  (strikes,   boycotts,  etc.) NLRA  preserves  freedom  of  contract  more  than  burdens  it Gov't  interference  through  NLRA  (allowing  CB)  helps  equalize   bargaining  power § Modern  (New  Deal)  Labor  Legislation Beginning  of  labor  law  as  we  know  it Norris  LaGuardia  Act  of  1932 Outlaws  yellow-­‐dog  contracts  (stop  people  from  joining  unions) Outlaws  federal  injunctions  against  non-­‐violent  labor  disputes National  Labor  Relations  Act  1935 Prohibited  employer  behavior  only Taft  Hartley  Act Amendment  to  NLRA NLRA  gave  unions  too  much  power  since  it  only  imposed  restrictions  on   employers For  every  statute  we  should  ask Who  is  covered? Threshold  issue,  we  need  to  see  if  this  holds  true  first What  protections  are  provided? How  is  it  enforced? For  every  statutory  case: Consider  relevant  rule(s)/rubric(s)  for  similar  cases Cases  are  similar  if  they  have  a  similar  legal  issue/question NLRA:  Who's  covered? Interstate  commerce Jones  &  Laughlin  Steel ER/EE  relationship  required  (NLRA  Sec.  2) Look  at  p.  50  of  stat  sup Who's  not: Gov't  employees Agriculture  &  Domestic  Service  workers Supervisors Independent  contractors NLRB  v.  United  Insurance  (1968,  SCOTUS) Facts: Debit  agents  work  at  an  insurance  company,  they  organize  a  union  &  get  a   majority  to  do  so,  but  they're  independent  contractors Legal  Question:  Are  debit  agents  employees  with  the  right  to  organize,  or  are   they  independent  contractors  under  NLRA  Section  2  (3)? Holding:  They  are  EEs Procedural  Posture: NLRB  says  they're  EEs,  certified  to  form  a  union Court  of  Appeals  declines  Board's  bargaining  order Supreme  Court  Reverses Reasoning: Agents  are  not  independent,  have  no  initiative  or  decision  making   authority  that  contractors  usually  have New  decisive  factors: Agents  don't  operate  their  own  business,  but  perform  essential   functions  for  the  company § Agents  were  trained  by  company § Do  business  under  company  name  w  assistance  from  company § "Agent's  Commission  Plan"  maintained  unilaterally  by  ER § Account  to  company  for  funds  they  collect § Receive  company  benefits § Have  a  permanent  working  arrangement § Roadway  Package  System  Inc.  (NLRB  decision  1998) Issue:  Are  the  drivers  at  Roadway's  Ontario  and  Panoma  Terminals  EEs  or  ICs   under  the  NLRA Holding:  The  drivers  at  Roadway's  Ontario  and  Panoma  Terminals  are   employees,  not  ICs  under  the  NLRA Reasoning: They  receive  guidance/supervision  from  the  company  -­‐ how  they  should   dress,  conduct  deliveries,  etc. They  don't  operate  an  independent  business Their  trucks  say  Roadway,  they  can't  use  them  to  deliver  for  another   business § Do  an  essential  task  for  normal  operations  of  the  business Receive  training  from  company  upon  employment Regardless  of  what  they  do,  they  have  a  fixed  pay  (no  gain  or  loss  based   on  commission) Entrepreneurial  Opportunity,  are  they  in  business  for  themselves § Judicial  Intervention  (in  Labor  Disputes) Judicial  response  to  Legislative  Intervention Before  New  Deal Lochner  v.  NY  (1905) Adkins  v.  Children's  Hospital  (1923) After  New  Deal West  Coast  Hotel  (1937) Jones  &  Laughlin  Steel  (1937) Legislative  Intervention  (Modern  Labor  Legislation) Norris  LaGuardia  Act  of  1932 National  Labor  Relations  Act  of  1935 Statutory,  looking  at  interpreting  what  Congress  meant  when  it  legislated Legislative  history  (hearings,  debates,   § Factors:  Totality  of  the  Circumstances  Test  (5  factors) Independent  business?  (Yes  -­‐ IC,  No  -­‐ EE) Significant  entrepreneurial  opportunity  for  gain  or  loss?  (Yes  -­‐ IC,  No  -­‐ EE) Prior  training  or  experience  required?  (Yes  -­‐ EE,  No  -­‐ IC) Performing  essential  functions?  (Yes  -­‐ EE,  No  -­‐ IC) Receive  significant  guidance,  supervision,  assistance  from  company   manager/supervisor  (Yes  -­‐ EE,  No  -­‐ IC) Dial-­‐A-­‐Mattress  (NLRB  1998) Workers  were  found  to  be  ICs No  training No  requirements  about  how  the  trucks  were  used Drivers  owned  multiple  trucks,  hired  other  helpers  &  drivers They  could  deliver  for  anyone  except  Dial's  competitors,  etc. Look  at  the  facts  through  the  lens  of  the  Totality  test Look  at  the  legal  question Teaching  Assistants/Students As  board's  constitution  of  members  changes,  certain  issues  that  are  more  politicized   than  others  flip  back  and  forth Football  Players  at  Northwestern Northwestern  Athletes  wanted  bargaining  power University  challenged  that  claim,  said  they  weren't  employees  &  weren't   covered  under  NLRA NLRA  Section  7 7:  EEs  have  the  right  to  engage  in  concerted  activity  for  mutual  aid  or  protection This  is  the  big  right  that  the  law  gave  employees 8a1:  ERs  cannot  interfere  with  Sec.  7  rights Elements EEs Concerted Protected Mutual  aid  or  protection What  is  concerted  activity? City  disposal Usually,  more  than  one NLRB  v.  City  Disposal  (1984) Facts: James  Brown's  truck  breaks  down,  is  told  to  drive  No.  244  (has  trouble   breaking)  by  Jasmund Brown  refuses  and  doesn't  cite  Article  XXI  directly  (EEs  not  required   to  operate  dangerous  equipment) § Refuses  to  drive  the  truck,  is  discharged  after  Robert  Mandary  tells  him  to   go  home  for  refusal  to  drive Brown    files  case  under  Sec.  7 ER  says  brown  was  acting  alone,  not  concerted § Union  declined  Brown's  grievance § This  is  a  unionized  workplace,  they  have  a  CB  agreement  and  a  contract   (see  Article  XXI  above)  (footnote  1,  p.  193) Issue Did  an  individual  engage  in  concerted  activity  under  NLRA  Sec  7  by   invoking  a  CB  agreement  such  that  it  was  a  Sec  8a1  violation  for  the   employer  to  fire  him? Holding: The  individual's  concerted  activity  was  in  accordance  with  the  NLRA Procedural  Posture: ALJ  found  Brown's  refusal  to  be  covered  under  Sec  7 NLRB  agrees  with  ALJ,  Brown  should  be  reinstated  with  backpay Court  of  Appeals  reverses,  Brown  acted  on  his  own Reasoning: Plain  language  of  the  statute Section  7  says  joining  and  assisting a  labor  organization  is  engaging   in  concerted  activity  through  participation  in  that  org § Conduct  by  an  individual  that  comes  from  group  activity  is  concerted, Board  determines  this  through  the  "Interboro  Doctrine,"  under   which  an  individual's  assertion  of  a  right  that  has  been  collectively   bargained  for  is  recognized  as  concerted  activity § One  person  invoking  a  provision  of  a  contract  is  invoking  the  CB   process  that  led  to  it § Article  XXI  of  the  contract,  can't  use  dangerous  equipment § Upholding  a  CBA  will  affect  the  rights  of  others  who  might  invoke  that   right Collective  affect  reasoning § Congressional  intent Congress  wanted  to  promote  concerted  activity  to  offset  inequality   of  bargaining  power § Consistent  with  the  purposes  of  the  act § Board  deference The  board  is  reasonable,  defer  to  it's  reasoning  when  so § NLRA  Section  7  and  8a  ULPs What  is  protected  concerted activity Concerted=group  (2  or  more) One  EE  engages  in  concerted  activity  when: Invokes  a  right  from  the  CBA  (City  Disposal) § Employee  wants  to  induce  group  activity § Acts  as  a  representative  of  a  group  decision § What  is  protected concerted  activity Spontaneous  walkout  of  unorganized  EEs  due  to  extreme  cold  was   protected  (Washington  Aluminum) Washington  Aluminum Facts: Seven  EEs  worked  in  a  machine  shop,  wasn't  insulated  (no  heat) Non-­‐union  workers § Jan  5  weather  was  super  cold  bc  furnace  broke  down One  EE  went  into  the  foreman's  quarters,  usually  warmer,  cold § EEs  huddled  together  for  warmth,  one  repeated  foreman's  words  "if  you   had  any  guts  you'd  go  home" They  leave,  they're  fired Issue:  Did  the  non-­‐unionized  workers  engage  in  protected  concerted  activity   under  Section  7  by  walking  out  such  that  it  was  a  violation  of  Section  8a1  for  ER   to  fire  them? Holding:  This  was  a  violation Reasoning: Grew  out  of  a  "labor  dispute"  Section  2(9)  due  to  condition  of   employment  (cold) Section  7  is  broad  to  protect  concerted  activity Unorganized  employees  are  protected  too § Narrow  reasoning  would  frustrate  the  purpose  of  the  act,  to  protect   the  right  of  workers  to  work  together  to  offset  bargaining  power § Section  7  doesn't  cover  everything,  but  the  EEs  didn't  do  these   exceptions: Unlawful  activity,  violence,  breach  of  contract,  disloyal  actions § Jefferson  Standard  (1953) Facts: Impasse  in  renewal  of  CBA  between  Jefferson  and  Local  1229 Union  pickets  peacefully  -­‐ trying  to  put  pressure  on  negotiations Starts  handing  out  handbills  attacking  quality  of  Jefferson's  programming 10  EEs  are  fired Issue:  Were  the  technicians  fired  for  "cause"  because  of  "disloyalty"  under   section  10(c)  of  NLRA  -­‐ Taft  Hartley  -­‐ which  excludes  them  from  sec  7  protection   and  is  not  a  violation  of  sec  8(a)1 Is  the  firing  of  the  technicians  a  sec  8(a)1  violation,  or  is  it  a  for  cause   dismissal  for  disloyalty? Holding:  The  company  is  justified  in  firing  these  employees  for  "cause"  because   of  "disloyalty"  under  Section  10(c)  of  NLRA,  excluding  EEs  from  sec  7  protection Reasoning: Handbills  didn't  talk  about  labor  at  all  in  disparagement  of  the  service Attack  made  no  reference  to  wages,  hours,  working  conditions § Attached  policies  made  by  management,  not  technicians § Didn't  ask  for  any  support  or  sympathy § Technicians  attacked  public  policies  of  company  unrelated  to   dispute § Needs  to  be  temporal  labor  dispute,  public  needs  to  understand  it  will  be   resolved  at  the  end  of  the  dispute Since  there's  no  mention  of  union  activity,  the  public  can't  know   this,  not  clear  disparaging  terms  would  change  if  labor  conditions   improve § Under  section  10(c),  EEs  can  be  discharged  for  "cause"  by  disloyalty Acted  counter  to  the  interests  of  company  they  were  paid  to  uphold § Purpose  of  NLRA  is  to  support  peace  and  stability,  technicians  did  neither Not  the  purpose  of  the  NLRA  for  ER  to  finance  these  actions § Jimmy  John's Facts: Jimmy  John's  workers  don’t  get  paid  sick  days Some  hand  out  pamphlets  about  the  labor  dispute   They  get  fired Issue  (same  as  Jefferson  Standard):  Were  the  employees  fired  for  cause  under   section  10(c)  of  the  NLRA  which  is  not  a  violation  of  section  8(a)1? Holding: Reasoning: Content  of  pamphlets  is  tied  to  labor  dispute Implies  that  the  disparagement  will  change  after  the  dispute ER  argues  no,  this  picture  is  so  damaging  disparagement   won't  change.   § Ask  for  support § Legal  Principle: There  has  to  be  a  sufficient  connection  between  disparagement  and  labor   dispute Eastex,  Inn.  V.  NLRB  (1978) Officer  of  local  801  started  distributing  a  newsletter Section  1  &  4:  Urged  EEs  to  join  the  union Section  2:  Encouraged  workers  to  oppose  state  right-­‐to-­‐work  statute Section  3:  Tells  EEs  the  president  vetoed  the  minimum  wage  increase ER  said  you  can't  distribute  newsletters  at  work They  file  a  ULP Issue:  Is  the  refusal  of  distributing  the  newsletter  with  some  political  activity  a   violation  of  section  8(a)1? EE  argument:  Not  unlawful,  violent,  breach  of  contract,  disloyal ER  argument:  Much  narrower  view  of  mutual  aid  &  protection Section  1&4  is  okay,  but  political  advocacy  is  not  MA&P Political  action  &  right-­‐to  work  not  kosher § ER  can't  do  anything  about  it § Holding:  Mention  of  political  action  &  right-­‐to-­‐work  law  was  protected  under   section  7  of  the  NLRA Reasoning: Relates  to  EEs  interests  as  EEs  -­‐ super  broad  reading Sec  2  (NLRA  -­‐ definition  of  EE)  is  designed  to  help  all  employees,   don't  have  to  have  same  employer Shall  include  any  EE  and  will  not  be  limited  to  the  EEs  of  a   particular  ER Broader  than  the  particular  employment  relationship § They  help  EEs  who  may  be  affected  by  right-­‐to-­‐work  or  min  wage   laws They  want  to  change  the  labor  market,  the  industry § 74th  Congress  knew  labor  push  beyond  immediate  employment  context,   and  expected  labor  to  use  a  variety  of  tools  to  advocate  for  their  well-­‐ being   (1930s,  New  Deal  congress) § Limit  depending  on  the  advocacy § Let  the  Board  decide  (court  of  appeals  and  SCOTUS  can  still   overturn) § Minimum  wages  have  an  affect  in  bargaining If  the  floor  on  negotiations  goes  up,  that  reverberates  and  helps  the   union § General  Council  Memo Similar  situation  as  Eastex,  but  this  time  about  immigration  laws General  Council  of  Board  sends  a  memo  saying  this  does  count  as  mutual  aid   and  protection Section  2's  broad  definition Congress's  broad  reading  of  mutual  aid  and  protection  -­‐ solidarity  as  a  key   issue Advocacy  is  connected  as  long  as  there's  a  direct  nexus  to  employee   working  conditions Immigration  policies  proposed  at  the  time  were  sufficiently  connected  to   working  conditions Threat  of  influx  of  foreign  engineers § Eastex,  Inn.  V.  NLRB  (1978) Officer  of  local  801  started  distributing  a  newsletter Section  1  &  4:  Urged  EEs  to  join  the  union Section  2:  Encouraged  workers  to  oppose  state  right-­‐to-­‐work  statute Section  3:  Tells  EEs  the  president  vetoed  the  minimum  wage  increase ER  said  you  can't  distribute  newsletters  at  work They  file  a  ULP Issue:  Is  the  refusal  of  distributing  the  newsletter  with  some  political  activity  a   violation  of  section  8(a)1? EE  argument:  Not  unlawful,  violent,  breach  of  contract,  disloyal ER  argument:  Much  narrower  view  of  mutual  aid  &  protection Section  1&4  is  okay,  but  political  advocacy  is  not  MA&P Political  action  &  right-­‐to  work  not  kosher § ER  can't  do  anything  about  it § Holding:  Mention  of  political  action  &  right-­‐to-­‐work  law  was  protected  under   section  7  of  the  NLRA Reasoning: Relates  to  EEs  interests  as  EEs  -­‐ super  broad  reading Sec  2  (NLRA  -­‐ definition  of  EE)  is  designed  to  help  all  employees,   don't  have  to  have  same  employer Shall  include  any  EE  and  will  not  be  limited  to  the  EEs  of  a   particular  ER Broader  than  the  particular  employment  relationship § They  help  EEs  who  may  be  affected  by  right-­‐to-­‐work  or  min  wage   laws They  want  to  change  the  labor  market,  the  industry § 74th  Congress  knew  labor  push  beyond  immediate  employment  context,   and  expected  labor  to  use  a  variety  of  tools  to  advocate  for  their  well-­‐ being   (1930s,  New  Deal  congress) § Limit  depending  on  the  advocacy § Let  the  Board  decide  (court  of  appeals  and  SCOTUS  can  still   overturn) § Minimum  wages  have  an  affect  in  bargaining If  the  floor  on  negotiations  goes  up,  that  reverberates  and  helps  the   union § General  Council  Memo Similar  situation  as  Eastex,  but  this  time  about  immigration  laws General  Council  of  Board  sends  a  memo  saying  this  does  count  as  mutual  aid   and  protection Section  2's  broad  definition Congress's  broad  reading  of  mutual  aid  and  protection  -­‐ solidarity  as  a  key   issue Advocacy  is  connected  as  long  as  there's  a  direct  nexus  to  employee   working  conditions Immigration  policies  proposed  at  the  time  were  sufficiently  connected  to   working  conditions Threat  of  influx  of  foreign  engineers § Prelim  1  Review Friday,  September   29,  2017 11:35  AM
background image The  Common  Law   Historical  Framework Unions  didn't  succeed  until  1870's  Knights  of  Labor Against  strikes  on  principle,  engaged  in  cooperative  negotiation  (not  CB),   admitted  skilled  workers,  manual  laborers  (farmers  etc.),  non-­‐workers   (lawyers  etc.) Biggest  success  came  from  Jay  Gould  railroad  strike  for  discrimination   against  strikers  (1885) Huge  surge  in  membership,  huge  decline  bc  inexperienced  leadership  &   different  interests AFL  w  Gompers  at  the  headed,  founded  as  defensive  measure.  Job  &  Wage   Consciousness  -­‐ increase  bargaining  power  in  workplce Judicial  Response  to  Labor  Disputes Criminal  Conspiracy Law's  original  response  treated  groups  of  craftsmen  as  criminal  conspiracy Philadelphia  Cordwainers  (Commonwealth  v.  Pullis) Philadelphia  Mayor's  Court Local  decision Facts Shoe  makers  would  only  work  at  wages  higher  than  usual,   tried  to  stop  others  from  accepting  lower  rates  (threats,  menaces,  and   other  unlawful  means) Wouldn't  work  for  someone  who  employed  non-­‐union  workers Issue Should  workers  be  allowed  to  set  their  own  prices  and  so  influence  the   market? Holding/decision Defendants  found  guilty,  fined  $8.00  each  (slap  on  the  wrist) Case  was  more  about  setting  precedent  than  punishment § Reasoning Levy  says  the  free  market  is  "natural,"  workers  setting  their  own  rates  is   unnatural,  unfair  -­‐    supply  and  demand  vs.  arbitrary  prices Hurts  people  who  try  to  participate  in  the  free  market  -­‐ "against  the   public  welfare" § Unions  force  people  to  keep  striking,  even  if  they'd  want  to  work  for   cheaper Rule/Legal  Principle Spirit  of  '76s  -­‐ contrasts  theme  of    "general  and  individual  liberty"  from   constitution Judicial  Response  to  Labor  Disputes Criminal  conspiracy Courts  treat  unions  as  criminal  conspiracies Philadelphia  Cordwainers  (1806) § Emergence  of  ends-­‐means  doctrine Courts  more  favorable  -­‐ it's  about  whether  what  the  union  does  is   threatening Overturned  Cordwainers,  says  unions  are  chill  unless  they  cause   physical  harm § Commonwealth  v.  Hunt  (1842) The  Labor  Injunction Courts  issued  injunctions  of  union  activity  to  restrain  strikes  and  boycotts Vegelahn  v.  Guntner  (1896) Vegelahn  v.  Guntner  (1896) Facts:   People  are  picketing,  putting  pressure  on  employers,  stop  everyone  going   in Want  ER  to  feel  pressure,  give  in  to  demands  of  higher  wages Procedural  Posture: ER  (Vegelahn)  asks  for  preliminary  injunction  to  stop  picketing Judge  grants  it,  broadly  worded § 1. Case  is  heard  on  merits  (by  Holmes) Also  grants  injunction  for  employer Only  prevents  threats  of  harm,  physical  interference,  contract   interference  (not  peaceful  picketing) § 2. State  goes  to  state  supreme  court,  Judge  Allen  writes  majority  opinion,   over-­‐ruling  Holmes  and  re-­‐installing  the  broader  injunction 3. Holding: First  injunction  was  right Reasoning Allen  (majority) Picketing  &  protesting  prevents  people  from  entering  the  business,   harder  for  business  to  carry  on  as  usual,  disrupts  market § Contract  Rights  -­‐ Constitutional Interferes  with  right  of  ER  to  hire  whomever  they  want Same  for  EE,  right  to  work  where  they  want § Uses  Sherry  v.  Perkins  -­‐ precedent Picketing  can  lead  to  intimidation  of  other  EEs,  leading  to   violence  (even  if  it  starts  peaceful) § Private  nuisance  (tort),  violates  the  common  law § Holmes'  Dissent: Argues  "Some  intentional  infliction  of  temporal  damage  is  justified" Allen  talks  about  temporal  damage,  usually  illegal  but  there  are   exceptions § Uses  an  analogy  of  business  competition Small  town  with  one  store,  can  only  handle  one  store  (customer   base),  new  business  comes  into  town,  puts  the  old  one  out  of   business.  There's  no  law  against  that.  People  are  pissed  but  it   happens. § Free  competition  is  worth  more  to  society  than  it  costs § Two  businesses  competing  =  union  v.  employers They're  both  trying  to  improve  their  economic  position,  but   by  different  means,  so  they  should  be  allowed  to  compete § Free-­‐market  viewpoint Allen  is  supporting  the  status  quo  and  calling  it  the  free  market,  but   it's  not There  are  inherent  imbalances  of  power § Judicial  Response  to  Protective  Labor  Legislation Voters  pressured  legislators  to  start  passing  laws  to  protect  EEs  (19th-­‐20th  c) Those  laws  are  challenged  in  court Starts  with  someone  saying  "this  law  is  affecting  me,  and  it's   unconstitutional" Federal  Court  System US  District  Courts Lowest  level,  collects  case  facts  &  makes  decision US  Courts  of  Appeals Reviews  District  Court  decisions Broken  into  circuits US  Supreme  Court  (for  states,  just  bc  it  says  Supreme  doesn't  mean  it's  the   highest  one) Can  review  U.S.  Court  of  Appeals'  decision They  have  the  discretion  to  take  whichever  cases  they  want  from  circuits Can  review  decisions  of  highest  state  courts  if they  involve  federal  issues US  Constitution  or  federal  statute § Legislative  +  Judicial  Branches Constitutional  challenges Supreme  Court  has  final  word Statutory  Interpretation  challenges Congress  has  final  word Lochner  v.  NY  (1905)  US  Supreme  Court Issue:  Bakery  EEs  can't  work  more  than  60  hours  a  week,  10  a  day.  Violate  14th   Amendment  (due  process)? Why  would  NY  pass  the  law?   Health  concern  for  bakers,  long  hours  in  conditions  potentially   detrimental  to  health § Hours  &  public  health,  bakers  make  a  public  good  (bread).  Working   more  may  hinder  the  quality  of  that § Legal  Question:  Did  the  NY  law  setting  a  60-­‐hour  maximum  work-­‐week  for   bakers  violate  the  14th  Amendment? Holding:  Violated  14th  Amendment,  Individuals  can't  be  deprived  of  life,  liberty   (to  contract),  property  without  due  process No  state  can  interfere  with  liberty  unless  it's  a  correct  exercise  of  police   powers Law  interferes  w  EEs'  freedom  to  make  their  own  contracts Police  power  =  state  power  to  intervene  with  safety,  health,  morals,  and  general   welfare Reasoning: We  don't  buy  the  link  between  hours,  baker  health,  and  public  health Interfering  with  right  to  make  contract  of  ER  and  EE,  protected  by  14th   Amendment   No  reason  workers  can't  handle  their  own  contracting "There  must  be  more  than  the  mere  fact  of  the  possible  existence   of  some  unhealthiness…" § Holmes'  Dissent: We  should  have  more  respect  for  legislative  process/voters The  people  know  what  they  want § Usury  laws,  interfered  with  peoples  lives  &  freedom  to  contract  -­‐ approved  as  constitutional,  proper  use  of  police  powers Government  limits  amount  of  interest  charged  on  a  loan Regulating  lotteries Sunday  Laws  -­‐ no  contracts  can  be  made  on  Sunday § Liberty  is  perverted  when  it  doesn't  let  legislative  majorities  decide  public   interest  at  a  historical  moment Holmes  thinks  the  courts  are  legislating,  which  they  shouldn't  be § Adkins  v.  Children's  Hospital  (1923)  US  Supreme  Court Facts: D.C.  legislators  use  police  powers  to  require  a  base  minimum  wage  for   women  workers Morals:  Low  wages  drives  women  to  prostitution Issue:  Is  the  D.C.  law  mandating  a  minimum  wage  for  women  (children  too,  but   dwai)  infringing  the  5th/14th  Amendment,  depriving  liberty  without  proper  use   of  police  powers Holding:  Yup Procedural  Posture: First  Case: Appellee  is  the  children's  Hospital Says  women  are  happy  with  their  wages § Adkins  wins,  injunction  is  not  granted § Second  Case: Appellee  is  woman  who  lost  her  job  at  a  hotel  because  of  wage  hike § US  District  court CH  (p)  v.  A  (d) Plaintiff  v.  Defendant § Court  of  Appeals CH  (appellant)  v.  A  (appellee,  respondent)  -­‐ since  A  won  last  time § CH  wins § US  Supreme  Court A  (appellant/petitioner)  v.  CH  (appellee,  respondent) § Reasoning: (1)  Adair  &  Coppage  define  liberty  as  liberty  to  contract Adair  v.  US  -­‐ person  has  right  to  sell  his/her  labor § Coppage  v.  Kansas  -­‐ right  to  make  contracts  to  get  money,  can't   interfere  with  this  liberty § Sometimes  liberty  to  contract  can  be  interfered  with  -­‐ due  process The  government  is  just  regulating  itself Exceptions (2)  Type  1:  Munn  v.  Illinois  -­‐ statutes  fixing  rates  &  charges  exacted   by  businesses  that  serve  a  public  interest Not  applicable  bc  Munn  is  a  public  interest,  Adkins  is  private   bc  it's  a  private  contract § (3)  Type  2:  Atkins  v.  Kansas;  Heim  v.  McCall;  Ellis  v.  US  -­‐ Laws   regulated  affairs  between  gov't  and  business  (hours,  wages,  etc.) Not  applicable  bc  since  the  gov't  is  one  of  the  parties  to  the   contract,  police  powers  are  valid  since  the  gov't  is  policing   itself When  the  gov't  partners  w  something  else,  can't  work  more   than  8-­‐hour  days  (yes,  police  power  gucci) § (4)  Type  3:  Statutes  concerning  the  circumstances  of  payment   (methods,  time,  etc.) Not  applicable,  didn't  establish  the  amount being  paid McLean  v.  Arkansas  -­‐ miner  employers  need  to  pay  for   amount  mined  before  screening  (refining) SC  says  that's  cool ® Knoxville  v.  Harbison  -­‐ pay  in  cash Eric  v.  Williams  -­‐ time  pay § (5)  Type  4:  Statutes  fixing  hours  of  labor  (max-­‐hour  laws) Court  says  law  set  on  health  needs Miners,  smelters,  some  manufacturers ® Holden  v.  Hardy,  Supreme  court  case,  Utah  law Was  constitutional,  police  powers  was  legit  bc   there  was  a  real  health  risk ® Lochner  wasn't  constitutional  bc  baker's  conditions   weren't  that  bad,  and  the  long  hours  weren't  a  proven   health  risk ® Wages  are  more  central  to  the  contract  than  hours,  limiting   them  is  more  harmful Only  focused  on  specific  industries  (not  areas),  DC  is  for   everybody § (6)  19th  Amendment  (women's  suffrage)  -­‐ that  means  they  don’t  need   special  protection (7)  Law  harms  ERs,  puts  an  unfair  burden  on  them (8)  Law  is  vague,  can't  regulate  the  wages*  (find  this  out  from  someone   else) Dissent: Taft Wages  &  hours  can  be  equally  detrimental,  they're  multiplied   together § 19th  Amendment  doesn't  get  rid  of  physical  weakness,  etc.  so   women  still  need  protection § Inequality  in  bargaining  power  ("not  all  workers  are  upon  the  full   level  of  the  quality  of  choice  with  their  employer  and  they're  prone   to  accept  pretty  much  whatever  is  offered") § About  the  Type  3  precedent,  laws  that  affect  how someone  is  paid   serve  the  same  goal  as  minimum  wage  laws Consistent  with  the  means-­‐end  doctrine § Not  function  of  court  to  carry  out  economic  views § Holmes 5th  Amendment  too  vague,  it  doesn't  say  "liberty  to  contract" § Usury  laws,  etc.  violate  liberty  to  contract  but  were  all  upheld Agrees  w  the  type  3  precedents Employers  of  sailors  can't  pay  them  before  the  leave  port § Federal  Courts Appellee/Respondent Won  immediately  below Appellant/Petitioner Lost  immediately  below Legal  question What  law,  whom  does  it  affect What  does  it  violate  (Constitution?  Which  part?) What  does  it  deprive  someone  of  (liberty?) West  Coast  Hotel  v.  Parrish  (1937) Facts: State's  kept  legislating  minimum  wage  laws  even  though  Adkins  had   already  lost,  voter  pressure Given  the  Great  Depression,  what  constitutes  proper  use  of  police  powers   may  be  shifting Putting  money  in  workers'  pockets  will  stimulate  the  economy § Legal  Question:  Was  Washington  State's  minimum  wage  law  for  women  an   unconstitutional  interference  with  the  14th  Amendment's  protection  of  liberty? Pretty  much  same  question  as  Adkins Holding:  It  was  constitutional,  due  process,  proper  use  of  police  powers Overturned  Adkins  -­‐ big  deal Reasoning:   Lines  of  reasoning  are  the  same  from  Adkins,  but  switch  sides. The  Great  Depression  is  a  game  changer,  the  only  major  difference The  switch  in  time  that  saved  9 FDR  passed  laws,  court  kept  overturning  them,  threatened  to  add  more   justices  in  favor  of  New  Deal Justice  Roberts  switches  and  joins  the  majority NLRB  v.  Jones  &  Laughlin  Steel  Co.  (1937) When  the  federal  legislature  was  trying  to  pass  laws,  they  relied  on  the   Commerce  Clause  to  justify  legislative  acts  bc  Congress  has  to  find  something  in   the  Constitution  that  gives  it  the  power  to  legislate Facts:   10  EEs  were  fired  for  trying  to  organize  (right  protected  by  the  NLRA) Co.  challenges  NLRA's  constitutionality,  Commerce  Clause Legal  Question:  Did  the  US  Congress  exceed  its  Constitutional  authority   pursuant  to  the  Commerce  Clause  when  it  enacted  the  NLRA Holding:  Nah  we  gucci Reasoning: Commerce  Clause  authority  is  broad Congress  has  power  to  regulate  things  that  might  affect  commerce § NLRA  is  regulating  activities  that  may  affect  interstate  commerce  (strikes,   boycotts,  etc.) NLRA  preserves  freedom  of  contract  more  than  burdens  it Gov't  interference  through  NLRA  (allowing  CB)  helps  equalize   bargaining  power § Modern  (New  Deal)  Labor  Legislation Beginning  of  labor  law  as  we  know  it Norris  LaGuardia  Act  of  1932 Outlaws  yellow-­‐dog  contracts  (stop  people  from  joining  unions) Outlaws  federal  injunctions  against  non-­‐violent  labor  disputes National  Labor  Relations  Act  1935 Prohibited  employer  behavior  only Taft  Hartley  Act Amendment  to  NLRA NLRA  gave  unions  too  much  power  since  it  only  imposed  restrictions  on   employers For  every  statute  we  should  ask Who  is  covered? Threshold  issue,  we  need  to  see  if  this  holds  true  first What  protections  are  provided? How  is  it  enforced? For  every  statutory  case: Consider  relevant  rule(s)/rubric(s)  for  similar  cases Cases  are  similar  if  they  have  a  similar  legal  issue/question NLRA:  Who's  covered? Interstate  commerce Jones  &  Laughlin  Steel ER/EE  relationship  required  (NLRA  Sec.  2) Look  at  p.  50  of  stat  sup Who's  not: Gov't  employees Agriculture  &  Domestic  Service  workers Supervisors Independent  contractors NLRB  v.  United  Insurance  (1968,  SCOTUS) Facts: Debit  agents  work  at  an  insurance  company,  they  organize  a  union  &  get  a   majority  to  do  so,  but  they're  independent  contractors Legal  Question:  Are  debit  agents  employees  with  the  right  to  organize,  or  are   they  independent  contractors  under  NLRA  Section  2  (3)? Holding:  They  are  EEs Procedural  Posture: NLRB  says  they're  EEs,  certified  to  form  a  union Court  of  Appeals  declines  Board's  bargaining  order Supreme  Court  Reverses Reasoning: Agents  are  not  independent,  have  no  initiative  or  decision  making   authority  that  contractors  usually  have New  decisive  factors: Agents  don't  operate  their  own  business,  but  perform  essential   functions  for  the  company § Agents  were  trained  by  company § Do  business  under  company  name  w  assistance  from  company § "Agent's  Commission  Plan"  maintained  unilaterally  by  ER § Account  to  company  for  funds  they  collect § Receive  company  benefits § Have  a  permanent  working  arrangement § Roadway  Package  System  Inc.  (NLRB  decision  1998) Issue:  Are  the  drivers  at  Roadway's  Ontario  and  Panoma  Terminals  EEs  or  ICs   under  the  NLRA Holding:  The  drivers  at  Roadway's  Ontario  and  Panoma  Terminals  are   employees,  not  ICs  under  the  NLRA Reasoning: They  receive  guidance/supervision  from  the  company  -­‐ how  they  should   dress,  conduct  deliveries,  etc. They  don't  operate  an  independent  business Their  trucks  say  Roadway,  they  can't  use  them  to  deliver  for  another   business § Do  an  essential  task  for  normal  operations  of  the  business Receive  training  from  company  upon  employment Regardless  of  what  they  do,  they  have  a  fixed  pay  (no  gain  or  loss  based   on  commission) Entrepreneurial  Opportunity,  are  they  in  business  for  themselves § Judicial  Intervention  (in  Labor  Disputes) Judicial  response  to  Legislative  Intervention Before  New  Deal Lochner  v.  NY  (1905) Adkins  v.  Children's  Hospital  (1923) After  New  Deal West  Coast  Hotel  (1937) Jones  &  Laughlin  Steel  (1937) Legislative  Intervention  (Modern  Labor  Legislation) Norris  LaGuardia  Act  of  1932 National  Labor  Relations  Act  of  1935 Statutory,  looking  at  interpreting  what  Congress  meant  when  it  legislated Legislative  history  (hearings,  debates,   § Factors:  Totality  of  the  Circumstances  Test  (5  factors) Independent  business?  (Yes  -­‐ IC,  No  -­‐ EE) Significant  entrepreneurial  opportunity  for  gain  or  loss?  (Yes  -­‐ IC,  No  -­‐ EE) Prior  training  or  experience  required?  (Yes  -­‐ EE,  No  -­‐ IC) Performing  essential  functions?  (Yes  -­‐ EE,  No  -­‐ IC) Receive  significant  guidance,  supervision,  assistance  from  company   manager/supervisor  (Yes  -­‐ EE,  No  -­‐ IC) Dial-­‐A-­‐Mattress  (NLRB  1998) Workers  were  found  to  be  ICs No  training No  requirements  about  how  the  trucks  were  used Drivers  owned  multiple  trucks,  hired  other  helpers  &  drivers They  could  deliver  for  anyone  except  Dial's  competitors,  etc. Look  at  the  facts  through  the  lens  of  the  Totality  test Look  at  the  legal  question Teaching  Assistants/Students As  board's  constitution  of  members  changes,  certain  issues  that  are  more  politicized   than  others  flip  back  and  forth Football  Players  at  Northwestern Northwestern  Athletes  wanted  bargaining  power University  challenged  that  claim,  said  they  weren't  employees  &  weren't   covered  under  NLRA NLRA  Section  7 7:  EEs  have  the  right  to  engage  in  concerted  activity  for  mutual  aid  or  protection This  is  the  big  right  that  the  law  gave  employees 8a1:  ERs  cannot  interfere  with  Sec.  7  rights Elements EEs Concerted Protected Mutual  aid  or  protection What  is  concerted  activity? City  disposal Usually,  more  than  one NLRB  v.  City  Disposal  (1984) Facts: James  Brown's  truck  breaks  down,  is  told  to  drive  No.  244  (has  trouble   breaking)  by  Jasmund Brown  refuses  and  doesn't  cite  Article  XXI  directly  (EEs  not  required   to  operate  dangerous  equipment) § Refuses  to  drive  the  truck,  is  discharged  after  Robert  Mandary  tells  him  to   go  home  for  refusal  to  drive Brown    files  case  under  Sec.  7 ER  says  brown  was  acting  alone,  not  concerted § Union  declined  Brown's  grievance § This  is  a  unionized  workplace,  they  have  a  CB  agreement  and  a  contract   (see  Article  XXI  above)  (footnote  1,  p.  193) Issue Did  an  individual  engage  in  concerted  activity  under  NLRA  Sec  7  by   invoking  a  CB  agreement  such  that  it  was  a  Sec  8a1  violation  for  the   employer  to  fire  him? Holding: The  individual's  concerted  activity  was  in  accordance  with  the  NLRA Procedural  Posture: ALJ  found  Brown's  refusal  to  be  covered  under  Sec  7 NLRB  agrees  with  ALJ,  Brown  should  be  reinstated  with  backpay Court  of  Appeals  reverses,  Brown  acted  on  his  own Reasoning: Plain  language  of  the  statute Section  7  says  joining  and  assisting a  labor  organization  is  engaging   in  concerted  activity  through  participation  in  that  org § Conduct  by  an  individual  that  comes  from  group  activity  is  concerted, Board  determines  this  through  the  "Interboro  Doctrine,"  under   which  an  individual's  assertion  of  a  right  that  has  been  collectively   bargained  for  is  recognized  as  concerted  activity § One  person  invoking  a  provision  of  a  contract  is  invoking  the  CB   process  that  led  to  it § Article  XXI  of  the  contract,  can't  use  dangerous  equipment § Upholding  a  CBA  will  affect  the  rights  of  others  who  might  invoke  that   right Collective  affect  reasoning § Congressional  intent Congress  wanted  to  promote  concerted  activity  to  offset  inequality   of  bargaining  power § Consistent  with  the  purposes  of  the  act § Board  deference The  board  is  reasonable,  defer  to  it's  reasoning  when  so § NLRA  Section  7  and  8a  ULPs What  is  protected  concerted activity Concerted=group  (2  or  more) One  EE  engages  in  concerted  activity  when: Invokes  a  right  from  the  CBA  (City  Disposal) § Employee  wants  to  induce  group  activity § Acts  as  a  representative  of  a  group  decision § What  is  protected concerted  activity Spontaneous  walkout  of  unorganized  EEs  due  to  extreme  cold  was   protected  (Washington  Aluminum) Washington  Aluminum Facts: Seven  EEs  worked  in  a  machine  shop,  wasn't  insulated  (no  heat) Non-­‐union  workers § Jan  5  weather  was  super  cold  bc  furnace  broke  down One  EE  went  into  the  foreman's  quarters,  usually  warmer,  cold § EEs  huddled  together  for  warmth,  one  repeated  foreman's  words  "if  you   had  any  guts  you'd  go  home" They  leave,  they're  fired Issue:  Did  the  non-­‐unionized  workers  engage  in  protected  concerted  activity   under  Section  7  by  walking  out  such  that  it  was  a  violation  of  Section  8a1  for  ER   to  fire  them? Holding:  This  was  a  violation Reasoning: Grew  out  of  a  "labor  dispute"  Section  2(9)  due  to  condition  of   employment  (cold) Section  7  is  broad  to  protect  concerted  activity Unorganized  employees  are  protected  too § Narrow  reasoning  would  frustrate  the  purpose  of  the  act,  to  protect   the  right  of  workers  to  work  together  to  offset  bargaining  power § Section  7  doesn't  cover  everything,  but  the  EEs  didn't  do  these   exceptions: Unlawful  activity,  violence,  breach  of  contract,  disloyal  actions § Jefferson  Standard  (1953) Facts: Impasse  in  renewal  of  CBA  between  Jefferson  and  Local  1229 Union  pickets  peacefully  -­‐ trying  to  put  pressure  on  negotiations Starts  handing  out  handbills  attacking  quality  of  Jefferson's  programming 10  EEs  are  fired Issue:  Were  the  technicians  fired  for  "cause"  because  of  "disloyalty"  under   section  10(c)  of  NLRA  -­‐ Taft  Hartley  -­‐ which  excludes  them  from  sec  7  protection   and  is  not  a  violation  of  sec  8(a)1 Is  the  firing  of  the  technicians  a  sec  8(a)1  violation,  or  is  it  a  for  cause   dismissal  for  disloyalty? Holding:  The  company  is  justified  in  firing  these  employees  for  "cause"  because   of  "disloyalty"  under  Section  10(c)  of  NLRA,  excluding  EEs  from  sec  7  protection Reasoning: Handbills  didn't  talk  about  labor  at  all  in  disparagement  of  the  service Attack  made  no  reference  to  wages,  hours,  working  conditions § Attached  policies  made  by  management,  not  technicians § Didn't  ask  for  any  support  or  sympathy § Technicians  attacked  public  policies  of  company  unrelated  to   dispute § Needs  to  be  temporal  labor  dispute,  public  needs  to  understand  it  will  be   resolved  at  the  end  of  the  dispute Since  there's  no  mention  of  union  activity,  the  public  can't  know   this,  not  clear  disparaging  terms  would  change  if  labor  conditions   improve § Under  section  10(c),  EEs  can  be  discharged  for  "cause"  by  disloyalty Acted  counter  to  the  interests  of  company  they  were  paid  to  uphold § Purpose  of  NLRA  is  to  support  peace  and  stability,  technicians  did  neither Not  the  purpose  of  the  NLRA  for  ER  to  finance  these  actions § Jimmy  John's Facts: Jimmy  John's  workers  don’t  get  paid  sick  days Some  hand  out  pamphlets  about  the  labor  dispute   They  get  fired Issue  (same  as  Jefferson  Standard):  Were  the  employees  fired  for  cause  under   section  10(c)  of  the  NLRA  which  is  not  a  violation  of  section  8(a)1? Holding: Reasoning: Content  of  pamphlets  is  tied  to  labor  dispute Implies  that  the  disparagement  will  change  after  the  dispute ER  argues  no,  this  picture  is  so  damaging  disparagement   won't  change.   § Ask  for  support § Legal  Principle: There  has  to  be  a  sufficient  connection  between  disparagement  and  labor   dispute Eastex,  Inn.  V.  NLRB  (1978) Officer  of  local  801  started  distributing  a  newsletter Section  1  &  4:  Urged  EEs  to  join  the  union Section  2:  Encouraged  workers  to  oppose  state  right-­‐to-­‐work  statute Section  3:  Tells  EEs  the  president  vetoed  the  minimum  wage  increase ER  said  you  can't  distribute  newsletters  at  work They  file  a  ULP Issue:  Is  the  refusal  of  distributing  the  newsletter  with  some  political  activity  a   violation  of  section  8(a)1? EE  argument:  Not  unlawful,  violent,  breach  of  contract,  disloyal ER  argument:  Much  narrower  view  of  mutual  aid  &  protection Section  1&4  is  okay,  but  political  advocacy  is  not  MA&P Political  action  &  right-­‐to  work  not  kosher § ER  can't  do  anything  about  it § Holding:  Mention  of  political  action  &  right-­‐to-­‐work  law  was  protected  under   section  7  of  the  NLRA Reasoning: Relates  to  EEs  interests  as  EEs  -­‐ super  broad  reading Sec  2  (NLRA  -­‐ definition  of  EE)  is  designed  to  help  all  employees,   don't  have  to  have  same  employer Shall  include  any  EE  and  will  not  be  limited  to  the  EEs  of  a   particular  ER Broader  than  the  particular  employment  relationship § They  help  EEs  who  may  be  affected  by  right-­‐to-­‐work  or  min  wage   laws They  want  to  change  the  labor  market,  the  industry § 74th  Congress  knew  labor  push  beyond  immediate  employment  context,   and  expected  labor  to  use  a  variety  of  tools  to  advocate  for  their  well-­‐ being   (1930s,  New  Deal  congress) § Limit  depending  on  the  advocacy § Let  the  Board  decide  (court  of  appeals  and  SCOTUS  can  still   overturn) § Minimum  wages  have  an  affect  in  bargaining If  the  floor  on  negotiations  goes  up,  that  reverberates  and  helps  the   union § General  Council  Memo Similar  situation  as  Eastex,  but  this  time  about  immigration  laws General  Council  of  Board  sends  a  memo  saying  this  does  count  as  mutual  aid   and  protection Section  2's  broad  definition Congress's  broad  reading  of  mutual  aid  and  protection  -­‐ solidarity  as  a  key   issue Advocacy  is  connected  as  long  as  there's  a  direct  nexus  to  employee   working  conditions Immigration  policies  proposed  at  the  time  were  sufficiently  connected  to   working  conditions Threat  of  influx  of  foreign  engineers § Eastex,  Inn.  V.  NLRB  (1978) Officer  of  local  801  started  distributing  a  newsletter Section  1  &  4:  Urged  EEs  to  join  the  union Section  2:  Encouraged  workers  to  oppose  state  right-­‐to-­‐work  statute Section  3:  Tells  EEs  the  president  vetoed  the  minimum  wage  increase ER  said  you  can't  distribute  newsletters  at  work They  file  a  ULP Issue:  Is  the  refusal  of  distributing  the  newsletter  with  some  political  activity  a   violation  of  section  8(a)1? EE  argument:  Not  unlawful,  violent,  breach  of  contract,  disloyal ER  argument:  Much  narrower  view  of  mutual  aid  &  protection Section  1&4  is  okay,  but  political  advocacy  is  not  MA&P Political  action  &  right-­‐to  work  not  kosher § ER  can't  do  anything  about  it § Holding:  Mention  of  political  action  &  right-­‐to-­‐work  law  was  protected  under   section  7  of  the  NLRA Reasoning: Relates  to  EEs  interests  as  EEs  -­‐ super  broad  reading Sec  2  (NLRA  -­‐ definition  of  EE)  is  designed  to  help  all  employees,   don't  have  to  have  same  employer Shall  include  any  EE  and  will  not  be  limited  to  the  EEs  of  a   particular  ER Broader  than  the  particular  employment  relationship § They  help  EEs  who  may  be  affected  by  right-­‐to-­‐work  or  min  wage   laws They  want  to  change  the  labor  market,  the  industry § 74th  Congress  knew  labor  push  beyond  immediate  employment  context,   and  expected  labor  to  use  a  variety  of  tools  to  advocate  for  their  well-­‐ being   (1930s,  New  Deal  congress) § Limit  depending  on  the  advocacy § Let  the  Board  decide  (court  of  appeals  and  SCOTUS  can  still   overturn) § Minimum  wages  have  an  affect  in  bargaining If  the  floor  on  negotiations  goes  up,  that  reverberates  and  helps  the   union § General  Council  Memo Similar  situation  as  Eastex,  but  this  time  about  immigration  laws General  Council  of  Board  sends  a  memo  saying  this  does  count  as  mutual  aid   and  protection Section  2's  broad  definition Congress's  broad  reading  of  mutual  aid  and  protection  -­‐ solidarity  as  a  key   issue Advocacy  is  connected  as  long  as  there's  a  direct  nexus  to  employee   working  conditions Immigration  policies  proposed  at  the  time  were  sufficiently  connected  to   working  conditions Threat  of  influx  of  foreign  engineers § Prelim  1  Review Friday,  September   29,  2017 11:35  AM
background image The  Common  Law   Historical  Framework Unions  didn't  succeed  until  1870's  Knights  of  Labor Against  strikes  on  principle,  engaged  in  cooperative  negotiation  (not  CB),   admitted  skilled  workers,  manual  laborers  (farmers  etc.),  non-­‐workers   (lawyers  etc.) Biggest  success  came  from  Jay  Gould  railroad  strike  for  discrimination   against  strikers  (1885) Huge  surge  in  membership,  huge  decline  bc  inexperienced  leadership  &   different  interests AFL  w  Gompers  at  the  headed,  founded  as  defensive  measure.  Job  &  Wage   Consciousness  -­‐ increase  bargaining  power  in  workplce Judicial  Response  to  Labor  Disputes Criminal  Conspiracy Law's  original  response  treated  groups  of  craftsmen  as  criminal  conspiracy Philadelphia  Cordwainers  (Commonwealth  v.  Pullis) Philadelphia  Mayor's  Court Local  decision Facts Shoe  makers  would  only  work  at  wages  higher  than  usual,   tried  to  stop  others  from  accepting  lower  rates  (threats,  menaces,  and   other  unlawful  means) Wouldn't  work  for  someone  who  employed  non-­‐union  workers Issue Should  workers  be  allowed  to  set  their  own  prices  and  so  influence  the   market? Holding/decision Defendants  found  guilty,  fined  $8.00  each  (slap  on  the  wrist) Case  was  more  about  setting  precedent  than  punishment § Reasoning Levy  says  the  free  market  is  "natural,"  workers  setting  their  own  rates  is   unnatural,  unfair  -­‐    supply  and  demand  vs.  arbitrary  prices Hurts  people  who  try  to  participate  in  the  free  market  -­‐ "against  the   public  welfare" § Unions  force  people  to  keep  striking,  even  if  they'd  want  to  work  for   cheaper Rule/Legal  Principle Spirit  of  '76s  -­‐ contrasts  theme  of    "general  and  individual  liberty"  from   constitution Judicial  Response  to  Labor  Disputes Criminal  conspiracy Courts  treat  unions  as  criminal  conspiracies Philadelphia  Cordwainers  (1806) § Emergence  of  ends-­‐means  doctrine Courts  more  favorable  -­‐ it's  about  whether  what  the  union  does  is   threatening Overturned  Cordwainers,  says  unions  are  chill  unless  they  cause   physical  harm § Commonwealth  v.  Hunt  (1842) The  Labor  Injunction Courts  issued  injunctions  of  union  activity  to  restrain  strikes  and  boycotts Vegelahn  v.  Guntner  (1896) Vegelahn  v.  Guntner  (1896) Facts:   People  are  picketing,  putting  pressure  on  employers,  stop  everyone  going   in Want  ER  to  feel  pressure,  give  in  to  demands  of  higher  wages Procedural  Posture: ER  (Vegelahn)  asks  for  preliminary  injunction  to  stop  picketing Judge  grants  it,  broadly  worded § 1. Case  is  heard  on  merits  (by  Holmes) Also  grants  injunction  for  employer Only  prevents  threats  of  harm,  physical  interference,  contract   interference  (not  peaceful  picketing) § 2. State  goes  to  state  supreme  court,  Judge  Allen  writes  majority  opinion,   over-­‐ruling  Holmes  and  re-­‐installing  the  broader  injunction 3. Holding: First  injunction  was  right Reasoning Allen  (majority) Picketing  &  protesting  prevents  people  from  entering  the  business,   harder  for  business  to  carry  on  as  usual,  disrupts  market § Contract  Rights  -­‐ Constitutional Interferes  with  right  of  ER  to  hire  whomever  they  want Same  for  EE,  right  to  work  where  they  want § Uses  Sherry  v.  Perkins  -­‐ precedent Picketing  can  lead  to  intimidation  of  other  EEs,  leading  to   violence  (even  if  it  starts  peaceful) § Private  nuisance  (tort),  violates  the  common  law § Holmes'  Dissent: Argues  "Some  intentional  infliction  of  temporal  damage  is  justified" Allen  talks  about  temporal  damage,  usually  illegal  but  there  are   exceptions § Uses  an  analogy  of  business  competition Small  town  with  one  store,  can  only  handle  one  store  (customer   base),  new  business  comes  into  town,  puts  the  old  one  out  of   business.  There's  no  law  against  that.  People  are  pissed  but  it   happens. § Free  competition  is  worth  more  to  society  than  it  costs § Two  businesses  competing  =  union  v.  employers They're  both  trying  to  improve  their  economic  position,  but   by  different  means,  so  they  should  be  allowed  to  compete § Free-­‐market  viewpoint Allen  is  supporting  the  status  quo  and  calling  it  the  free  market,  but   it's  not There  are  inherent  imbalances  of  power § Judicial  Response  to  Protective  Labor  Legislation Voters  pressured  legislators  to  start  passing  laws  to  protect  EEs  (19th-­‐20th  c) Those  laws  are  challenged  in  court Starts  with  someone  saying  "this  law  is  affecting  me,  and  it's   unconstitutional" Federal  Court  System US  District  Courts Lowest  level,  collects  case  facts  &  makes  decision US  Courts  of  Appeals Reviews  District  Court  decisions Broken  into  circuits US  Supreme  Court  (for  states,  just  bc  it  says  Supreme  doesn't  mean  it's  the   highest  one) Can  review  U.S.  Court  of  Appeals'  decision They  have  the  discretion  to  take  whichever  cases  they  want  from  circuits Can  review  decisions  of  highest  state  courts  if they  involve  federal  issues US  Constitution  or  federal  statute § Legislative  +  Judicial  Branches Constitutional  challenges Supreme  Court  has  final  word Statutory  Interpretation  challenges Congress  has  final  word Lochner  v.  NY  (1905)  US  Supreme  Court Issue:  Bakery  EEs  can't  work  more  than  60  hours  a  week,  10  a  day.  Violate  14th   Amendment  (due  process)? Why  would  NY  pass  the  law?   Health  concern  for  bakers,  long  hours  in  conditions  potentially   detrimental  to  health § Hours  &  public  health,  bakers  make  a  public  good  (bread).  Working   more  may  hinder  the  quality  of  that § Legal  Question:  Did  the  NY  law  setting  a  60-­‐hour  maximum  work-­‐week  for   bakers  violate  the  14th  Amendment? Holding:  Violated  14th  Amendment,  Individuals  can't  be  deprived  of  life,  liberty   (to  contract),  property  without  due  process No  state  can  interfere  with  liberty  unless  it's  a  correct  exercise  of  police   powers Law  interferes  w  EEs'  freedom  to  make  their  own  contracts Police  power  =  state  power  to  intervene  with  safety,  health,  morals,  and  general   welfare Reasoning: We  don't  buy  the  link  between  hours,  baker  health,  and  public  health Interfering  with  right  to  make  contract  of  ER  and  EE,  protected  by  14th   Amendment   No  reason  workers  can't  handle  their  own  contracting "There  must  be  more  than  the  mere  fact  of  the  possible  existence   of  some  unhealthiness…" § Holmes'  Dissent: We  should  have  more  respect  for  legislative  process/voters The  people  know  what  they  want § Usury  laws,  interfered  with  peoples  lives  &  freedom  to  contract  -­‐ approved  as  constitutional,  proper  use  of  police  powers Government  limits  amount  of  interest  charged  on  a  loan Regulating  lotteries Sunday  Laws  -­‐ no  contracts  can  be  made  on  Sunday § Liberty  is  perverted  when  it  doesn't  let  legislative  majorities  decide  public   interest  at  a  historical  moment Holmes  thinks  the  courts  are  legislating,  which  they  shouldn't  be § Adkins  v.  Children's  Hospital  (1923)  US  Supreme  Court Facts: D.C.  legislators  use  police  powers  to  require  a  base  minimum  wage  for   women  workers Morals:  Low  wages  drives  women  to  prostitution Issue:  Is  the  D.C.  law  mandating  a  minimum  wage  for  women  (children  too,  but   dwai)  infringing  the  5th/14th  Amendment,  depriving  liberty  without  proper  use   of  police  powers Holding:  Yup Procedural  Posture: First  Case: Appellee  is  the  children's  Hospital Says  women  are  happy  with  their  wages § Adkins  wins,  injunction  is  not  granted § Second  Case: Appellee  is  woman  who  lost  her  job  at  a  hotel  because  of  wage  hike § US  District  court CH  (p)  v.  A  (d) Plaintiff  v.  Defendant § Court  of  Appeals CH  (appellant)  v.  A  (appellee,  respondent)  -­‐ since  A  won  last  time § CH  wins § US  Supreme  Court A  (appellant/petitioner)  v.  CH  (appellee,  respondent) § Reasoning: (1)  Adair  &  Coppage  define  liberty  as  liberty  to  contract Adair  v.  US  -­‐ person  has  right  to  sell  his/her  labor § Coppage  v.  Kansas  -­‐ right  to  make  contracts  to  get  money,  can't   interfere  with  this  liberty § Sometimes  liberty  to  contract  can  be  interfered  with  -­‐ due  process The  government  is  just  regulating  itself Exceptions (2)  Type  1:  Munn  v.  Illinois  -­‐ statutes  fixing  rates  &  charges  exacted   by  businesses  that  serve  a  public  interest Not  applicable  bc  Munn  is  a  public  interest,  Adkins  is  private   bc  it's  a  private  contract § (3)  Type  2:  Atkins  v.  Kansas;  Heim  v.  McCall;  Ellis  v.  US  -­‐ Laws   regulated  affairs  between  gov't  and  business  (hours,  wages,  etc.) Not  applicable  bc  since  the  gov't  is  one  of  the  parties  to  the   contract,  police  powers  are  valid  since  the  gov't  is  policing   itself When  the  gov't  partners  w  something  else,  can't  work  more   than  8-­‐hour  days  (yes,  police  power  gucci) § (4)  Type  3:  Statutes  concerning  the  circumstances  of  payment   (methods,  time,  etc.) Not  applicable,  didn't  establish  the  amount being  paid McLean  v.  Arkansas  -­‐ miner  employers  need  to  pay  for   amount  mined  before  screening  (refining) SC  says  that's  cool ® Knoxville  v.  Harbison  -­‐ pay  in  cash Eric  v.  Williams  -­‐ time  pay § (5)  Type  4:  Statutes  fixing  hours  of  labor  (max-­‐hour  laws) Court  says  law  set  on  health  needs Miners,  smelters,  some  manufacturers ® Holden  v.  Hardy,  Supreme  court  case,  Utah  law Was  constitutional,  police  powers  was  legit  bc   there  was  a  real  health  risk ® Lochner  wasn't  constitutional  bc  baker's  conditions   weren't  that  bad,  and  the  long  hours  weren't  a  proven   health  risk ® Wages  are  more  central  to  the  contract  than  hours,  limiting   them  is  more  harmful Only  focused  on  specific  industries  (not  areas),  DC  is  for   everybody § (6)  19th  Amendment  (women's  suffrage)  -­‐ that  means  they  don’t  need   special  protection (7)  Law  harms  ERs,  puts  an  unfair  burden  on  them (8)  Law  is  vague,  can't  regulate  the  wages*  (find  this  out  from  someone   else) Dissent: Taft Wages  &  hours  can  be  equally  detrimental,  they're  multiplied   together § 19th  Amendment  doesn't  get  rid  of  physical  weakness,  etc.  so   women  still  need  protection § Inequality  in  bargaining  power  ("not  all  workers  are  upon  the  full   level  of  the  quality  of  choice  with  their  employer  and  they're  prone   to  accept  pretty  much  whatever  is  offered") § About  the  Type  3  precedent,  laws  that  affect  how someone  is  paid   serve  the  same  goal  as  minimum  wage  laws Consistent  with  the  means-­‐end  doctrine § Not  function  of  court  to  carry  out  economic  views § Holmes 5th  Amendment  too  vague,  it  doesn't  say  "liberty  to  contract" § Usury  laws,  etc.  violate  liberty  to  contract  but  were  all  upheld Agrees  w  the  type  3  precedents Employers  of  sailors  can't  pay  them  before  the  leave  port § Federal  Courts Appellee/Respondent Won  immediately  below Appellant/Petitioner Lost  immediately  below Legal  question What  law,  whom  does  it  affect What  does  it  violate  (Constitution?  Which  part?) What  does  it  deprive  someone  of  (liberty?) West  Coast  Hotel  v.  Parrish  (1937) Facts: State's  kept  legislating  minimum  wage  laws  even  though  Adkins  had   already  lost,  voter  pressure Given  the  Great  Depression,  what  constitutes  proper  use  of  police  powers   may  be  shifting Putting  money  in  workers'  pockets  will  stimulate  the  economy § Legal  Question:  Was  Washington  State's  minimum  wage  law  for  women  an   unconstitutional  interference  with  the  14th  Amendment's  protection  of  liberty? Pretty  much  same  question  as  Adkins Holding:  It  was  constitutional,  due  process,  proper  use  of  police  powers Overturned  Adkins  -­‐ big  deal Reasoning:   Lines  of  reasoning  are  the  same  from  Adkins,  but  switch  sides. The  Great  Depression  is  a  game  changer,  the  only  major  difference The  switch  in  time  that  saved  9 FDR  passed  laws,  court  kept  overturning  them,  threatened  to  add  more   justices  in  favor  of  New  Deal Justice  Roberts  switches  and  joins  the  majority NLRB  v.  Jones  &  Laughlin  Steel  Co.  (1937) When  the  federal  legislature  was  trying  to  pass  laws,  they  relied  on  the   Commerce  Clause  to  justify  legislative  acts  bc  Congress  has  to  find  something  in   the  Constitution  that  gives  it  the  power  to  legislate Facts:   10  EEs  were  fired  for  trying  to  organize  (right  protected  by  the  NLRA) Co.  challenges  NLRA's  constitutionality,  Commerce  Clause Legal  Question:  Did  the  US  Congress  exceed  its  Constitutional  authority   pursuant  to  the  Commerce  Clause  when  it  enacted  the  NLRA Holding:  Nah  we  gucci Reasoning: Commerce  Clause  authority  is  broad Congress  has  power  to  regulate  things  that  might  affect  commerce § NLRA  is  regulating  activities  that  may  affect  interstate  commerce  (strikes,   boycotts,  etc.) NLRA  preserves  freedom  of  contract  more  than  burdens  it Gov't  interference  through  NLRA  (allowing  CB)  helps  equalize   bargaining  power § Modern  (New  Deal)  Labor  Legislation Beginning  of  labor  law  as  we  know  it Norris  LaGuardia  Act  of  1932 Outlaws  yellow-­‐dog  contracts  (stop  people  from  joining  unions) Outlaws  federal  injunctions  against  non-­‐violent  labor  disputes National  Labor  Relations  Act  1935 Prohibited  employer  behavior  only Taft  Hartley  Act Amendment  to  NLRA NLRA  gave  unions  too  much  power  since  it  only  imposed  restrictions  on   employers For  every  statute  we  should  ask Who  is  covered? Threshold  issue,  we  need  to  see  if  this  holds  true  first What  protections  are  provided? How  is  it  enforced? For  every  statutory  case: Consider  relevant  rule(s)/rubric(s)  for  similar  cases Cases  are  similar  if  they  have  a  similar  legal  issue/question NLRA:  Who's  covered? Interstate  commerce Jones  &  Laughlin  Steel ER/EE  relationship  required  (NLRA  Sec.  2) Look  at  p.  50  of  stat  sup Who's  not: Gov't  employees Agriculture  &  Domestic  Service  workers Supervisors Independent  contractors NLRB  v.  United  Insurance  (1968,  SCOTUS) Facts: Debit  agents  work  at  an  insurance  company,  they  organize  a  union  &  get  a   majority  to  do  so,  but  they're  independent  contractors Legal  Question:  Are  debit  agents  employees  with  the  right  to  organize,  or  are   they  independent  contractors  under  NLRA  Section  2  (3)? Holding:  They  are  EEs Procedural  Posture: NLRB  says  they're  EEs,  certified  to  form  a  union Court  of  Appeals  declines  Board's  bargaining  order Supreme  Court  Reverses Reasoning: Agents  are  not  independent,  have  no  initiative  or  decision  making   authority  that  contractors  usually  have New  decisive  factors: Agents  don't  operate  their  own  business,  but  perform  essential   functions  for  the  company § Agents  were  trained  by  company § Do  business  under  company  name  w  assistance  from  company § "Agent's  Commission  Plan"  maintained  unilaterally  by  ER § Account  to  company  for  funds  they  collect § Receive  company  benefits § Have  a  permanent  working  arrangement § Roadway  Package  System  Inc.  (NLRB  decision  1998) Issue:  Are  the  drivers  at  Roadway's  Ontario  and  Panoma  Terminals  EEs  or  ICs   under  the  NLRA Holding:  The  drivers  at  Roadway's  Ontario  and  Panoma  Terminals  are   employees,  not  ICs  under  the  NLRA Reasoning: They  receive  guidance/supervision  from  the  company  -­‐ how  they  should   dress,  conduct  deliveries,  etc. They  don't  operate  an  independent  business Their  trucks  say  Roadway,  they  can't  use  them  to  deliver  for  another   business § Do  an  essential  task  for  normal  operations  of  the  business Receive  training  from  company  upon  employment Regardless  of  what  they  do,  they  have  a  fixed  pay  (no  gain  or  loss  based   on  commission) Entrepreneurial  Opportunity,  are  they  in  business  for  themselves § Judicial  Intervention  (in  Labor  Disputes) Judicial  response  to  Legislative  Intervention Before  New  Deal Lochner  v.  NY  (1905) Adkins  v.  Children's  Hospital  (1923) After  New  Deal West  Coast  Hotel  (1937) Jones  &  Laughlin  Steel  (1937) Legislative  Intervention  (Modern  Labor  Legislation) Norris  LaGuardia  Act  of  1932 National  Labor  Relations  Act  of  1935 Statutory,  looking  at  interpreting  what  Congress  meant  when  it  legislated Legislative  history  (hearings,  debates,   § Factors:  Totality  of  the  Circumstances  Test  (5  factors) Independent  business?  (Yes  -­‐ IC,  No  -­‐ EE) Significant  entrepreneurial  opportunity  for  gain  or  loss?  (Yes  -­‐ IC,  No  -­‐ EE) Prior  training  or  experience  required?  (Yes  -­‐ EE,  No  -­‐ IC) Performing  essential  functions?  (Yes  -­‐ EE,  No  -­‐ IC) Receive  significant  guidance,  supervision,  assistance  from  company   manager/supervisor  (Yes  -­‐ EE,  No  -­‐ IC) Dial-­‐A-­‐Mattress  (NLRB  1998) Workers  were  found  to  be  ICs No  training No  requirements  about  how  the  trucks  were  used Drivers  owned  multiple  trucks,  hired  other  helpers  &  drivers They  could  deliver  for  anyone  except  Dial's  competitors,  etc. Look  at  the  facts  through  the  lens  of  the  Totality  test Look  at  the  legal  question Teaching  Assistants/Students As  board's  constitution  of  members  changes,  certain  issues  that  are  more  politicized   than  others  flip  back  and  forth Football  Players  at  Northwestern Northwestern  Athletes  wanted  bargaining  power University  challenged  that  claim,  said  they  weren't  employees  &  weren't   covered  under  NLRA NLRA  Section  7 7:  EEs  have  the  right  to  engage  in  concerted  activity  for  mutual  aid  or  protection This  is  the  big  right  that  the  law  gave  employees 8a1:  ERs  cannot  interfere  with  Sec.  7  rights Elements EEs Concerted Protected Mutual  aid  or  protection What  is  concerted  activity? City  disposal Usually,  more  than  one NLRB  v.  City  Disposal  (1984) Facts: James  Brown's  truck  breaks  down,  is  told  to  drive  No.  244  (has  trouble   breaking)  by  Jasmund Brown  refuses  and  doesn't  cite  Article  XXI  directly  (EEs  not  required   to  operate  dangerous  equipment) § Refuses  to  drive  the  truck,  is  discharged  after  Robert  Mandary  tells  him  to   go  home  for  refusal  to  drive Brown    files  case  under  Sec.  7 ER  says  brown  was  acting  alone,  not  concerted § Union  declined  Brown's  grievance § This  is  a  unionized  workplace,  they  have  a  CB  agreement  and  a  contract   (see  Article  XXI  above)  (footnote  1,  p.  193) Issue Did  an  individual  engage  in  concerted  activity  under  NLRA  Sec  7  by   invoking  a  CB  agreement  such  that  it  was  a  Sec  8a1  violation  for  the   employer  to  fire  him? Holding: The  individual's  concerted  activity  was  in  accordance  with  the  NLRA Procedural  Posture: ALJ  found  Brown's  refusal  to  be  covered  under  Sec  7 NLRB  agrees  with  ALJ,  Brown  should  be  reinstated  with  backpay Court  of  Appeals  reverses,  Brown  acted  on  his  own Reasoning: Plain  language  of  the  statute Section  7  says  joining  and  assisting a  labor  organization  is  engaging   in  concerted  activity  through  participation  in  that  org § Conduct  by  an  individual  that  comes  from  group  activity  is  concerted, Board  determines  this  through  the  "Interboro  Doctrine,"  under   which  an  individual's  assertion  of  a  right  that  has  been  collectively   bargained  for  is  recognized  as  concerted  activity § One  person  invoking  a  provision  of  a  contract  is  invoking  the  CB   process  that  led  to  it § Article  XXI  of  the  contract,  can't  use  dangerous  equipment § Upholding  a  CBA  will  affect  the  rights  of  others  who  might  invoke  that   right Collective  affect  reasoning § Congressional  intent Congress  wanted  to  promote  concerted  activity  to  offset  inequality   of  bargaining  power § Consistent  with  the  purposes  of  the  act § Board  deference The  board  is  reasonable,  defer  to  it's  reasoning  when  so § NLRA  Section  7  and  8a  ULPs What  is  protected  concerted activity Concerted=group  (2  or  more) One  EE  engages  in  concerted  activity  when: Invokes  a  right  from  the  CBA  (City  Disposal) § Employee  wants  to  induce  group  activity § Acts  as  a  representative  of  a  group  decision § What  is  protected concerted  activity Spontaneous  walkout  of  unorganized  EEs  due  to  extreme  cold  was   protected  (Washington  Aluminum) Washington  Aluminum Facts: Seven  EEs  worked  in  a  machine  shop,  wasn't  insulated  (no  heat) Non-­‐union  workers § Jan  5  weather  was  super  cold  bc  furnace  broke  down One  EE  went  into  the  foreman's  quarters,  usually  warmer,  cold § EEs  huddled  together  for  warmth,  one  repeated  foreman's  words  "if  you   had  any  guts  you'd  go  home" They  leave,  they're  fired Issue:  Did  the  non-­‐unionized  workers  engage  in  protected  concerted  activity   under  Section  7  by  walking  out  such  that  it  was  a  violation  of  Section  8a1  for  ER   to  fire  them? Holding:  This  was  a  violation Reasoning: Grew  out  of  a  "labor  dispute"  Section  2(9)  due  to  condition  of   employment  (cold) Section  7  is  broad  to  protect  concerted  activity Unorganized  employees  are  protected  too § Narrow  reasoning  would  frustrate  the  purpose  of  the  act,  to  protect   the  right  of  workers  to  work  together  to  offset  bargaining  power § Section  7  doesn't  cover  everything,  but  the  EEs  didn't  do  these   exceptions: Unlawful  activity,  violence,  breach  of  contract,  disloyal  actions § Jefferson  Standard  (1953) Facts: Impasse  in  renewal  of  CBA  between  Jefferson  and  Local  1229 Union  pickets  peacefully  -­‐ trying  to  put  pressure  on  negotiations Starts  handing  out  handbills  attacking  quality  of  Jefferson's  programming 10  EEs  are  fired Issue:  Were  the  technicians  fired  for  "cause"  because  of  "disloyalty"  under   section  10(c)  of  NLRA  -­‐ Taft  Hartley  -­‐ which  excludes  them  from  sec  7  protection   and  is  not  a  violation  of  sec  8(a)1 Is  the  firing  of  the  technicians  a  sec  8(a)1  violation,  or  is  it  a  for  cause   dismissal  for  disloyalty? Holding:  The  company  is  justified  in  firing  these  employees  for  "cause"  because   of  "disloyalty"  under  Section  10(c)  of  NLRA,  excluding  EEs  from  sec  7  protection Reasoning: Handbills  didn't  talk  about  labor  at  all  in  disparagement  of  the  service Attack  made  no  reference  to  wages,  hours,  working  conditions § Attached  policies  made  by  management,  not  technicians § Didn't  ask  for  any  support  or  sympathy § Technicians  attacked  public  policies  of  company  unrelated  to   dispute § Needs  to  be  temporal  labor  dispute,  public  needs  to  understand  it  will  be   resolved  at  the  end  of  the  dispute Since  there's  no  mention  of  union  activity,  the  public  can't  know   this,  not  clear  disparaging  terms  would  change  if  labor  conditions   improve § Under  section  10(c),  EEs  can  be  discharged  for  "cause"  by  disloyalty Acted  counter  to  the  interests  of  company  they  were  paid  to  uphold § Purpose  of  NLRA  is  to  support  peace  and  stability,  technicians  did  neither Not  the  purpose  of  the  NLRA  for  ER  to  finance  these  actions § Jimmy  John's Facts: Jimmy  John's  workers  don’t  get  paid  sick  days Some  hand  out  pamphlets  about  the  labor  dispute   They  get  fired Issue  (same  as  Jefferson  Standard):  Were  the  employees  fired  for  cause  under   section  10(c)  of  the  NLRA  which  is  not  a  violation  of  section  8(a)1? Holding: Reasoning: Content  of  pamphlets  is  tied  to  labor  dispute Implies  that  the  disparagement  will  change  after  the  dispute ER  argues  no,  this  picture  is  so  damaging  disparagement   won't  change.   § Ask  for  support § Legal  Principle: There  has  to  be  a  sufficient  connection  between  disparagement  and  labor   dispute Eastex,  Inn.  V.  NLRB  (1978) Officer  of  local  801  started  distributing  a  newsletter Section  1  &  4:  Urged  EEs  to  join  the  union Section  2:  Encouraged  workers  to  oppose  state  right-­‐to-­‐work  statute Section  3:  Tells  EEs  the  president  vetoed  the  minimum  wage  increase ER  said  you  can't  distribute  newsletters  at  work They  file  a  ULP Issue:  Is  the  refusal  of  distributing  the  newsletter  with  some  political  activity  a   violation  of  section  8(a)1? EE  argument:  Not  unlawful,  violent,  breach  of  contract,  disloyal ER  argument:  Much  narrower  view  of  mutual  aid  &  protection Section  1&4  is  okay,  but  political  advocacy  is  not  MA&P Political  action  &  right-­‐to  work  not  kosher § ER  can't  do  anything  about  it § Holding:  Mention  of  political  action  &  right-­‐to-­‐work  law  was  protected  under   section  7  of  the  NLRA Reasoning: Relates  to  EEs  interests  as  EEs  -­‐ super  broad  reading Sec  2  (NLRA  -­‐ definition  of  EE)  is  designed  to  help  all  employees,   don't  have  to  have  same  employer Shall  include  any  EE  and  will  not  be  limited  to  the  EEs  of  a   particular  ER Broader  than  the  particular  employment  relationship § They  help  EEs  who  may  be  affected  by  right-­‐to-­‐work  or  min  wage   laws They  want  to  change  the  labor  market,  the  industry § 74th  Congress  knew  labor  push  beyond  immediate  employment  context,   and  expected  labor  to  use  a  variety  of  tools  to  advocate  for  their  well-­‐ being   (1930s,  New  Deal  congress) § Limit  depending  on  the  advocacy § Let  the  Board  decide  (court  of  appeals  and  SCOTUS  can  still   overturn) § Minimum  wages  have  an  affect  in  bargaining If  the  floor  on  negotiations  goes  up,  that  reverberates  and  helps  the   union § General  Council  Memo Similar  situation  as  Eastex,  but  this  time  about  immigration  laws General  Council  of  Board  sends  a  memo  saying  this  does  count  as  mutual  aid   and  protection Section  2's  broad  definition Congress's  broad  reading  of  mutual  aid  and  protection  -­‐ solidarity  as  a  key   issue Advocacy  is  connected  as  long  as  there's  a  direct  nexus  to  employee   working  conditions Immigration  policies  proposed  at  the  time  were  sufficiently  connected  to   working  conditions Threat  of  influx  of  foreign  engineers § Eastex,  Inn.  V.  NLRB  (1978) Officer  of  local  801  started  distributing  a  newsletter Section  1  &  4:  Urged  EEs  to  join  the  union Section  2:  Encouraged  workers  to  oppose  state  right-­‐to-­‐work  statute Section  3:  Tells  EEs  the  president  vetoed  the  minimum  wage  increase ER  said  you  can't  distribute  newsletters  at  work They  file  a  ULP Issue:  Is  the  refusal  of  distributing  the  newsletter  with  some  political  activity  a   violation  of  section  8(a)1? EE  argument:  Not  unlawful,  violent,  breach  of  contract,  disloyal ER  argument:  Much  narrower  view  of  mutual  aid  &  protection Section  1&4  is  okay,  but  political  advocacy  is  not  MA&P Political  action  &  right-­‐to  work  not  kosher § ER  can't  do  anything  about  it § Holding:  Mention  of  political  action  &  right-­‐to-­‐work  law  was  protected  under   section  7  of  the  NLRA Reasoning: Relates  to  EEs  interests  as  EEs  -­‐ super  broad  reading Sec  2  (NLRA  -­‐ definition  of  EE)  is  designed  to  help  all  employees,   don't  have  to  have  same  employer Shall  include  any  EE  and  will  not  be  limited  to  the  EEs  of  a   particular  ER Broader  than  the  particular  employment  relationship § They  help  EEs  who  may  be  affected  by  right-­‐to-­‐work  or  min  wage   laws They  want  to  change  the  labor  market,  the  industry § 74th  Congress  knew  labor  push  beyond  immediate  employment  context,   and  expected  labor  to  use  a  variety  of  tools  to  advocate  for  their  well-­‐ being   (1930s,  New  Deal  congress) § Limit  depending  on  the  advocacy § Let  the  Board  decide  (court  of  appeals  and  SCOTUS  can  still   overturn) § Minimum  wages  have  an  affect  in  bargaining If  the  floor  on  negotiations  goes  up,  that  reverberates  and  helps  the   union § General  Council  Memo Similar  situation  as  Eastex,  but  this  time  about  immigration  laws General  Council  of  Board  sends  a  memo  saying  this  does  count  as  mutual  aid   and  protection Section  2's  broad  definition Congress's  broad  reading  of  mutual  aid  and  protection  -­‐ solidarity  as  a  key   issue Advocacy  is  connected  as  long  as  there's  a  direct  nexus  to  employee   working  conditions Immigration  policies  proposed  at  the  time  were  sufficiently  connected  to   working  conditions Threat  of  influx  of  foreign  engineers § Prelim  1  Review Friday,  September   29,  2017 11:35  AM
background image The  Common  Law   Historical  Framework Unions  didn't  succeed  until  1870's  Knights  of  Labor Against  strikes  on  principle,  engaged  in  cooperative  negotiation  (not  CB),   admitted  skilled  workers,  manual  laborers  (farmers  etc.),  non-­‐workers   (lawyers  etc.) Biggest  success  came  from  Jay  Gould  railroad  strike  for  discrimination   against  strikers  (1885) Huge  surge  in  membership,  huge  decline  bc  inexperienced  leadership  &   different  interests AFL  w  Gompers  at  the  headed,  founded  as  defensive  measure.  Job  &  Wage   Consciousness  -­‐ increase  bargaining  power  in  workplce Judicial  Response  to  Labor  Disputes Criminal  Conspiracy Law's  original  response  treated  groups  of  craftsmen  as  criminal  conspiracy Philadelphia  Cordwainers  (Commonwealth  v.  Pullis) Philadelphia  Mayor's  Court Local  decision Facts Shoe  makers  would  only  work  at  wages  higher  than  usual,   tried  to  stop  others  from  accepting  lower  rates  (threats,  menaces,  and   other  unlawful  means) Wouldn't  work  for  someone  who  employed  non-­‐union  workers Issue Should  workers  be  allowed  to  set  their  own  prices  and  so  influence  the   market? Holding/decision Defendants  found  guilty,  fined  $8.00  each  (slap  on  the  wrist) Case  was  more  about  setting  precedent  than  punishment § Reasoning Levy  says  the  free  market  is  "natural,"  workers  setting  their  own  rates  is   unnatural,  unfair  -­‐    supply  and  demand  vs.  arbitrary  prices Hurts  people  who  try  to  participate  in  the  free  market  -­‐ "against  the   public  welfare" § Unions  force  people  to  keep  striking,  even  if  they'd  want  to  work  for   cheaper Rule/Legal  Principle Spirit  of  '76s  -­‐ contrasts  theme  of    "general  and  individual  liberty"  from   constitution Judicial  Response  to  Labor  Disputes Criminal  conspiracy Courts  treat  unions  as  criminal  conspiracies Philadelphia  Cordwainers  (1806) § Emergence  of  ends-­‐means  doctrine Courts  more  favorable  -­‐ it's  about  whether  what  the  union  does  is   threatening Overturned  Cordwainers,  says  unions  are  chill  unless  they  cause   physical  harm § Commonwealth  v.  Hunt  (1842) The  Labor  Injunction Courts  issued  injunctions  of  union  activity  to  restrain  strikes  and  boycotts Vegelahn  v.  Guntner  (1896) Vegelahn  v.  Guntner  (1896) Facts:   People  are  picketing,  putting  pressure  on  employers,  stop  everyone  going   in Want  ER  to  feel  pressure,  give  in  to  demands  of  higher  wages Procedural  Posture: ER  (Vegelahn)  asks  for  preliminary  injunction  to  stop  picketing Judge  grants  it,  broadly  worded § 1. Case  is  heard  on  merits  (by  Holmes) Also  grants  injunction  for  employer Only  prevents  threats  of  harm,  physical  interference,  contract   interference  (not  peaceful  picketing) § 2. State  goes  to  state  supreme  court,  Judge  Allen  writes  majority  opinion,   over-­‐ruling  Holmes  and  re-­‐installing  the  broader  injunction 3. Holding: First  injunction  was  right Reasoning Allen  (majority) Picketing  &  protesting  prevents  people  from  entering  the  business,   harder  for  business  to  carry  on  as  usual,  disrupts  market § Contract  Rights  -­‐ Constitutional Interferes  with  right  of  ER  to  hire  whomever  they  want Same  for  EE,  right  to  work  where  they  want § Uses  Sherry  v.  Perkins  -­‐ precedent Picketing  can  lead  to  intimidation  of  other  EEs,  leading  to   violence  (even  if  it  starts  peaceful) § Private  nuisance  (tort),  violates  the  common  law § Holmes'  Dissent: Argues  "Some  intentional  infliction  of  temporal  damage  is  justified" Allen  talks  about  temporal  damage,  usually  illegal  but  there  are   exceptions § Uses  an  analogy  of  business  competition Small  town  with  one  store,  can  only  handle  one  store  (customer   base),  new  business  comes  into  town,  puts  the  old  one  out  of   business.  There's  no  law  against  that.  People  are  pissed  but  it   happens. § Free  competition  is  worth  more  to  society  than  it  costs § Two  businesses  competing  =  union  v.  employers They're  both  trying  to  improve  their  economic  position,  but   by  different  means,  so  they  should  be  allowed  to  compete § Free-­‐market  viewpoint Allen  is  supporting  the  status  quo  and  calling  it  the  free  market,  but   it's  not There  are  inherent  imbalances  of  power § Judicial  Response  to  Protective  Labor  Legislation Voters  pressured  legislators  to  start  passing  laws  to  protect  EEs  (19th-­‐20th  c) Those  laws  are  challenged  in  court Starts  with  someone  saying  "this  law  is  affecting  me,  and  it's   unconstitutional" Federal  Court  System US  District  Courts Lowest  level,  collects  case  facts  &  makes  decision US  Courts  of  Appeals Reviews  District  Court  decisions Broken  into  circuits US  Supreme  Court  (for  states,  just  bc  it  says  Supreme  doesn't  mean  it's  the   highest  one) Can  review  U.S.  Court  of  Appeals'  decision They  have  the  discretion  to  take  whichever  cases  they  want  from  circuits Can  review  decisions  of  highest  state  courts  if they  involve  federal  issues US  Constitution  or  federal  statute § Legislative  +  Judicial  Branches Constitutional  challenges Supreme  Court  has  final  word Statutory  Interpretation  challenges Congress  has  final  word Lochner  v.  NY  (1905)  US  Supreme  Court Issue:  Bakery  EEs  can't  work  more  than  60  hours  a  week,  10  a  day.  Violate  14th   Amendment  (due  process)? Why  would  NY  pass  the  law?   Health  concern  for  bakers,  long  hours  in  conditions  potentially   detrimental  to  health § Hours  &  public  health,  bakers  make  a  public  good  (bread).  Working   more  may  hinder  the  quality  of  that § Legal  Question:  Did  the  NY  law  setting  a  60-­‐hour  maximum  work-­‐week  for   bakers  violate  the  14th  Amendment? Holding:  Violated  14th  Amendment,  Individuals  can't  be  deprived  of  life,  liberty   (to  contract),  property  without  due  process No  state  can  interfere  with  liberty  unless  it's  a  correct  exercise  of  police   powers Law  interferes  w  EEs'  freedom  to  make  their  own  contracts Police  power  =  state  power  to  intervene  with  safety,  health,  morals,  and  general   welfare Reasoning: We  don't  buy  the  link  between  hours,  baker  health,  and  public  health Interfering  with  right  to  make  contract  of  ER  and  EE,  protected  by  14th   Amendment   No  reason  workers  can't  handle  their  own  contracting "There  must  be  more  than  the  mere  fact  of  the  possible  existence   of  some  unhealthiness…" § Holmes'  Dissent: We  should  have  more  respect  for  legislative  process/voters The  people  know  what  they  want § Usury  laws,  interfered  with  peoples  lives  &  freedom  to  contract  -­‐ approved  as  constitutional,  proper  use  of  police  powers Government  limits  amount  of  interest  charged  on  a  loan Regulating  lotteries Sunday  Laws  -­‐ no  contracts  can  be  made  on  Sunday § Liberty  is  perverted  when  it  doesn't  let  legislative  majorities  decide  public   interest  at  a  historical  moment Holmes  thinks  the  courts  are  legislating,  which  they  shouldn't  be § Adkins  v.  Children's  Hospital  (1923)  US  Supreme  Court Facts: D.C.  legislators  use  police  powers  to  require  a  base  minimum  wage  for   women  workers Morals:  Low  wages  drives  women  to  prostitution Issue:  Is  the  D.C.  law  mandating  a  minimum  wage  for  women  (children  too,  but   dwai)  infringing  the  5th/14th  Amendment,  depriving  liberty  without  proper  use   of  police  powers Holding:  Yup Procedural  Posture: First  Case: Appellee  is  the  children's  Hospital Says  women  are  happy  with  their  wages § Adkins  wins,  injunction  is  not  granted § Second  Case: Appellee  is  woman  who  lost  her  job  at  a  hotel  because  of  wage  hike § US  District  court CH  (p)  v.  A  (d) Plaintiff  v.  Defendant § Court  of  Appeals CH  (appellant)  v.  A  (appellee,  respondent)  -­‐ since  A  won  last  time § CH  wins § US  Supreme  Court A  (appellant/petitioner)  v.  CH  (appellee,  respondent) § Reasoning: (1)  Adair  &  Coppage  define  liberty  as  liberty  to  contract Adair  v.  US  -­‐ person  has  right  to  sell  his/her  labor § Coppage  v.  Kansas  -­‐ right  to  make  contracts  to  get  money,  can't   interfere  with  this  liberty § Sometimes  liberty  to  contract  can  be  interfered  with  -­‐ due  process The  government  is  just  regulating  itself Exceptions (2)  Type  1:  Munn  v.  Illinois  -­‐ statutes  fixing  rates  &  charges  exacted   by  businesses  that  serve  a  public  interest Not  applicable  bc  Munn  is  a  public  interest,  Adkins  is  private   bc  it's  a  private  contract § (3)  Type  2:  Atkins  v.  Kansas;  Heim  v.  McCall;  Ellis  v.  US  -­‐ Laws   regulated  affairs  between  gov't  and  business  (hours,  wages,  etc.) Not  applicable  bc  since  the  gov't  is  one  of  the  parties  to  the   contract,  police  powers  are  valid  since  the  gov't  is  policing   itself When  the  gov't  partners  w  something  else,  can't  work  more   than  8-­‐hour  days  (yes,  police  power  gucci) § (4)  Type  3:  Statutes  concerning  the  circumstances  of  payment   (methods,  time,  etc.) Not  applicable,  didn't  establish  the  amount being  paid McLean  v.  Arkansas  -­‐ miner  employers  need  to  pay  for   amount  mined  before  screening  (refining) SC  says  that's  cool ® Knoxville  v.  Harbison  -­‐ pay  in  cash Eric  v.  Williams  -­‐ time  pay § (5)  Type  4:  Statutes  fixing  hours  of  labor  (max-­‐hour  laws) Court  says  law  set  on  health  needs Miners,  smelters,  some  manufacturers ® Holden  v.  Hardy,  Supreme  court  case,  Utah  law Was  constitutional,  police  powers  was  legit  bc   there  was  a  real  health  risk ® Lochner  wasn't  constitutional  bc  baker's  conditions   weren't  that  bad,  and  the  long  hours  weren't  a  proven   health  risk ® Wages  are  more  central  to  the  contract  than  hours,  limiting   them  is  more  harmful Only  focused  on  specific  industries  (not  areas),  DC  is  for   everybody § (6)  19th  Amendment  (women's  suffrage)  -­‐ that  means  they  don’t  need   special  protection (7)  Law  harms  ERs,  puts  an  unfair  burden  on  them (8)  Law  is  vague,  can't  regulate  the  wages*  (find  this  out  from  someone   else) Dissent: Taft Wages  &  hours  can  be  equally  detrimental,  they're  multiplied   together § 19th  Amendment  doesn't  get  rid  of  physical  weakness,  etc.  so   women  still  need  protection § Inequality  in  bargaining  power  ("not  all  workers  are  upon  the  full   level  of  the  quality  of  choice  with  their  employer  and  they're  prone   to  accept  pretty  much  whatever  is  offered") § About  the  Type  3  precedent,  laws  that  affect  how someone  is  paid   serve  the  same  goal  as  minimum  wage  laws Consistent  with  the  means-­‐end  doctrine § Not  function  of  court  to  carry  out  economic  views § Holmes 5th  Amendment  too  vague,  it  doesn't  say  "liberty  to  contract" § Usury  laws,  etc.  violate  liberty  to  contract  but  were  all  upheld Agrees  w  the  type  3  precedents Employers  of  sailors  can't  pay  them  before  the  leave  port § Federal  Courts Appellee/Respondent Won  immediately  below Appellant/Petitioner Lost  immediately  below Legal  question What  law,  whom  does  it  affect What  does  it  violate  (Constitution?  Which  part?) What  does  it  deprive  someone  of  (liberty?) West  Coast  Hotel  v.  Parrish  (1937) Facts: State's  kept  legislating  minimum  wage  laws  even  though  Adkins  had   already  lost,  voter  pressure Given  the  Great  Depression,  what  constitutes  proper  use  of  police  powers   may  be  shifting Putting  money  in  workers'  pockets  will  stimulate  the  economy § Legal  Question:  Was  Washington  State's  minimum  wage  law  for  women  an   unconstitutional  interference  with  the  14th  Amendment's  protection  of  liberty? Pretty  much  same  question  as  Adkins Holding:  It  was  constitutional,  due  process,  proper  use  of  police  powers Overturned  Adkins  -­‐ big  deal Reasoning:   Lines  of  reasoning  are  the  same  from  Adkins,  but  switch  sides. The  Great  Depression  is  a  game  changer,  the  only  major  difference The  switch  in  time  that  saved  9 FDR  passed  laws,  court  kept  overturning  them,  threatened  to  add  more   justices  in  favor  of  New  Deal Justice  Roberts  switches  and  joins  the  majority NLRB  v.  Jones  &  Laughlin  Steel  Co.  (1937) When  the  federal  legislature  was  trying  to  pass  laws,  they  relied  on  the   Commerce  Clause  to  justify  legislative  acts  bc  Congress  has  to  find  something  in   the  Constitution  that  gives  it  the  power  to  legislate Facts:   10  EEs  were  fired  for  trying  to  organize  (right  protected  by  the  NLRA) Co.  challenges  NLRA's  constitutionality,  Commerce  Clause Legal  Question:  Did  the  US  Congress  exceed  its  Constitutional  authority   pursuant  to  the  Commerce  Clause  when  it  enacted  the  NLRA Holding:  Nah  we  gucci Reasoning: Commerce  Clause  authority  is  broad Congress  has  power  to  regulate  things  that  might  affect  commerce § NLRA  is  regulating  activities  that  may  affect  interstate  commerce  (strikes,   boycotts,  etc.) NLRA  preserves  freedom  of  contract  more  than  burdens  it Gov't  interference  through  NLRA  (allowing  CB)  helps  equalize   bargaining  power § Modern  (New  Deal)  Labor  Legislation Beginning  of  labor  law  as  we  know  it Norris  LaGuardia  Act  of  1932 Outlaws  yellow-­‐dog  contracts  (stop  people  from  joining  unions) Outlaws  federal  injunctions  against  non-­‐violent  labor  disputes National  Labor  Relations  Act  1935 Prohibited  employer  behavior  only Taft  Hartley  Act Amendment  to  NLRA NLRA  gave  unions  too  much  power  since  it  only  imposed  restrictions  on   employers For  every  statute  we  should  ask Who  is  covered? Threshold  issue,  we  need  to  see  if  this  holds  true  first What  protections  are  provided? How  is  it  enforced? For  every  statutory  case: Consider  relevant  rule(s)/rubric(s)  for  similar  cases Cases  are  similar  if  they  have  a  similar  legal  issue/question NLRA:  Who's  covered? Interstate  commerce Jones  &  Laughlin  Steel ER/EE  relationship  required  (NLRA  Sec.  2) Look  at  p.  50  of  stat  sup Who's  not: Gov't  employees Agriculture  &  Domestic  Service  workers Supervisors Independent  contractors NLRB  v.  United  Insurance  (1968,  SCOTUS) Facts: Debit  agents  work  at  an  insurance  company,  they  organize  a  union  &  get  a   majority  to  do  so,  but  they're  independent  contractors Legal  Question:  Are  debit  agents  employees  with  the  right  to  organize,  or  are   they  independent  contractors  under  NLRA  Section  2  (3)? Holding:  They  are  EEs Procedural  Posture: NLRB  says  they're  EEs,  certified  to  form  a  union Court  of  Appeals  declines  Board's  bargaining  order Supreme  Court  Reverses Reasoning: Agents  are  not  independent,  have  no  initiative  or  decision  making   authority  that  contractors  usually  have New  decisive  factors: Agents  don't  operate  their  own  business,  but  perform  essential   functions  for  the  company § Agents  were  trained  by  company § Do  business  under  company  name  w  assistance  from  company § "Agent's  Commission  Plan"  maintained  unilaterally  by  ER § Account  to  company  for  funds  they  collect § Receive  company  benefits § Have  a  permanent  working  arrangement § Roadway  Package  System  Inc.  (NLRB  decision  1998) Issue:  Are  the  drivers  at  Roadway's  Ontario  and  Panoma  Terminals  EEs  or  ICs   under  the  NLRA Holding:  The  drivers  at  Roadway's  Ontario  and  Panoma  Terminals  are   employees,  not  ICs  under  the  NLRA Reasoning: They  receive  guidance/supervision  from  the  company  -­‐ how  they  should   dress,  conduct  deliveries,  etc. They  don't  operate  an  independent  business Their  trucks  say  Roadway,  they  can't  use  them  to  deliver  for  another   business § Do  an  essential  task  for  normal  operations  of  the  business Receive  training  from  company  upon  employment Regardless  of  what  they  do,  they  have  a  fixed  pay  (no  gain  or  loss  based   on  commission) Entrepreneurial  Opportunity,  are  they  in  business  for  themselves § Judicial  Intervention  (in  Labor  Disputes) Judicial  response  to  Legislative  Intervention Before  New  Deal Lochner  v.  NY  (1905) Adkins  v.  Children's  Hospital  (1923) After  New  Deal West  Coast  Hotel  (1937) Jones  &  Laughlin  Steel  (1937) Legislative  Intervention  (Modern  Labor  Legislation) Norris  LaGuardia  Act  of  1932 National  Labor  Relations  Act  of  1935 Statutory,  looking  at  interpreting  what  Congress  meant  when  it  legislated Legislative  history  (hearings,  debates,   § Factors:  Totality  of  the  Circumstances  Test  (5  factors) Independent  business?  (Yes  -­‐ IC,  No  -­‐ EE) Significant  entrepreneurial  opportunity  for  gain  or  loss?  (Yes  -­‐ IC,  No  -­‐ EE) Prior  training  or  experience  required?  (Yes  -­‐ EE,  No  -­‐ IC) Performing  essential  functions?  (Yes  -­‐ EE,  No  -­‐ IC) Receive  significant  guidance,  supervision,  assistance  from  company   manager/supervisor  (Yes  -­‐ EE,  No  -­‐ IC) Dial-­‐A-­‐Mattress  (NLRB  1998) Workers  were  found  to  be  ICs No  training No  requirements  about  how  the  trucks  were  used Drivers  owned  multiple  trucks,  hired  other  helpers  &  drivers They  could  deliver  for  anyone  except  Dial's  competitors,  etc. Look  at  the  facts  through  the  lens  of  the  Totality  test Look  at  the  legal  question Teaching  Assistants/Students As  board's  constitution  of  members  changes,  certain  issues  that  are  more  politicized   than  others  flip  back  and  forth Football  Players  at  Northwestern Northwestern  Athletes  wanted  bargaining  power University  challenged  that  claim,  said  they  weren't  employees  &  weren't   covered  under  NLRA NLRA  Section  7 7:  EEs  have  the  right  to  engage  in  concerted  activity  for  mutual  aid  or  protection This  is  the  big  right  that  the  law  gave  employees 8a1:  ERs  cannot  interfere  with  Sec.  7  rights Elements EEs Concerted Protected Mutual  aid  or  protection What  is  concerted  activity? City  disposal Usually,  more  than  one NLRB  v.  City  Disposal  (1984) Facts: James  Brown's  truck  breaks  down,  is  told  to  drive  No.  244  (has  trouble   breaking)  by  Jasmund Brown  refuses  and  doesn't  cite  Article  XXI  directly  (EEs  not  required   to  operate  dangerous  equipment) § Refuses  to  drive  the  truck,  is  discharged  after  Robert  Mandary  tells  him  to   go  home  for  refusal  to  drive Brown    files  case  under  Sec.  7 ER  says  brown  was  acting  alone,  not  concerted § Union  declined  Brown's  grievance § This  is  a  unionized  workplace,  they  have  a  CB  agreement  and  a  contract   (see  Article  XXI  above)  (footnote  1,  p.  193) Issue Did  an  individual  engage  in  concerted  activity  under  NLRA  Sec  7  by   invoking  a  CB  agreement  such  that  it  was  a  Sec  8a1  violation  for  the   employer  to  fire  him? Holding: The  individual's  concerted  activity  was  in  accordance  with  the  NLRA Procedural  Posture: ALJ  found  Brown's  refusal  to  be  covered  under  Sec  7 NLRB  agrees  with  ALJ,  Brown  should  be  reinstated  with  backpay Court  of  Appeals  reverses,  Brown  acted  on  his  own Reasoning: Plain  language  of  the  statute Section  7  says  joining  and  assisting a  labor  organization  is  engaging   in  concerted  activity  through  participation  in  that  org § Conduct  by  an  individual  that  comes  from  group  activity  is  concerted, Board  determines  this  through  the  "Interboro  Doctrine,"  under   which  an  individual's  assertion  of  a  right  that  has  been  collectively   bargained  for  is  recognized  as  concerted  activity § One  person  invoking  a  provision  of  a  contract  is  invoking  the  CB   process  that  led  to  it § Article  XXI  of  the  contract,  can't  use  dangerous  equipment § Upholding  a  CBA  will  affect  the  rights  of  others  who  might  invoke  that   right Collective  affect  reasoning § Congressional  intent Congress  wanted  to  promote  concerted  activity  to  offset  inequality   of  bargaining  power § Consistent  with  the  purposes  of  the  act § Board  deference The  board  is  reasonable,  defer  to  it's  reasoning  when  so § NLRA  Section  7  and  8a  ULPs What  is  protected  concerted activity Concerted=group  (2  or  more) One  EE  engages  in  concerted  activity  when: Invokes  a  right  from  the  CBA  (City  Disposal) § Employee  wants  to  induce  group  activity § Acts  as  a  representative  of  a  group  decision § What  is  protected concerted  activity Spontaneous  walkout  of  unorganized  EEs  due  to  extreme  cold  was   protected  (Washington  Aluminum) Washington  Aluminum Facts: Seven  EEs  worked  in  a  machine  shop,  wasn't  insulated  (no  heat) Non-­‐union  workers § Jan  5  weather  was  super  cold  bc  furnace  broke  down One  EE  went  into  the  foreman's  quarters,  usually  warmer,  cold § EEs  huddled  together  for  warmth,  one  repeated  foreman's  words  "if  you   had  any  guts  you'd  go  home" They  leave,  they're  fired Issue:  Did  the  non-­‐unionized  workers  engage  in  protected  concerted  activity   under  Section  7  by  walking  out  such  that  it  was  a  violation  of  Section  8a1  for  ER   to  fire  them? Holding:  This  was  a  violation Reasoning: Grew  out  of  a  "labor  dispute"  Section  2(9)  due  to  condition  of   employment  (cold) Section  7  is  broad  to  protect  concerted  activity Unorganized  employees  are  protected  too § Narrow  reasoning  would  frustrate  the  purpose  of  the  act,  to  protect   the  right  of  workers  to  work  together  to  offset  bargaining  power § Section  7  doesn't  cover  everything,  but  the  EEs  didn't  do  these   exceptions: Unlawful  activity,  violence,  breach  of  contract,  disloyal  actions § Jefferson  Standard  (1953) Facts: Impasse  in  renewal  of  CBA  between  Jefferson  and  Local  1229 Union  pickets  peacefully  -­‐ trying  to  put  pressure  on  negotiations Starts  handing  out  handbills  attacking  quality  of  Jefferson's  programming 10  EEs  are  fired Issue:  Were  the  technicians  fired  for  "cause"  because  of  "disloyalty"  under   section  10(c)  of  NLRA  -­‐ Taft  Hartley  -­‐ which  excludes  them  from  sec  7  protection   and  is  not  a  violation  of  sec  8(a)1 Is  the  firing  of  the  technicians  a  sec  8(a)1  violation,  or  is  it  a  for  cause   dismissal  for  disloyalty? Holding:  The  company  is  justified  in  firing  these  employees  for  "cause"  because   of  "disloyalty"  under  Section  10(c)  of  NLRA,  excluding  EEs  from  sec  7  protection Reasoning: Handbills  didn't  talk  about  labor  at  all  in  disparagement  of  the  service Attack  made  no  reference  to  wages,  hours,  working  conditions § Attached  policies  made  by  management,  not  technicians § Didn't  ask  for  any  support  or  sympathy § Technicians  attacked  public  policies  of  company  unrelated  to   dispute § Needs  to  be  temporal  labor  dispute,  public  needs  to  understand  it  will  be   resolved  at  the  end  of  the  dispute Since  there's  no  mention  of  union  activity,  the  public  can't  know   this,  not  clear  disparaging  terms  would  change  if  labor  conditions   improve § Under  section  10(c),  EEs  can  be  discharged  for  "cause"  by  disloyalty Acted  counter  to  the  interests  of  company  they  were  paid  to  uphold § Purpose  of  NLRA  is  to  support  peace  and  stability,  technicians  did  neither Not  the  purpose  of  the  NLRA  for  ER  to  finance  these  actions § Jimmy  John's Facts: Jimmy  John's  workers  don’t  get  paid  sick  days Some  hand  out  pamphlets  about  the  labor  dispute   They  get  fired Issue  (same  as  Jefferson  Standard):  Were  the  employees  fired  for  cause  under   section  10(c)  of  the  NLRA  which  is  not  a  violation  of  section  8(a)1? Holding: Reasoning: Content  of  pamphlets  is  tied  to  labor  dispute Implies  that  the  disparagement  will  change  after  the  dispute ER  argues  no,  this  picture  is  so  damaging  disparagement   won't  change.   § Ask  for  support § Legal  Principle: There  has  to  be  a  sufficient  connection  between  disparagement  and  labor   dispute Eastex,  Inn.  V.  NLRB  (1978) Officer  of  local  801  started  distributing  a  newsletter Section  1  &  4:  Urged  EEs  to  join  the  union Section  2:  Encouraged  workers  to  oppose  state  right-­‐to-­‐work  statute Section  3:  Tells  EEs  the  president  vetoed  the  minimum  wage  increase ER  said  you  can't  distribute  newsletters  at  work They  file  a  ULP Issue:  Is  the  refusal  of  distributing  the  newsletter  with  some  political  activity  a   violation  of  section  8(a)1? EE  argument:  Not  unlawful,  violent,  breach  of  contract,  disloyal ER  argument:  Much  narrower  view  of  mutual  aid  &  protection Section  1&4  is  okay,  but  political  advocacy  is  not  MA&P Political  action  &  right-­‐to  work  not  kosher § ER  can't  do  anything  about  it § Holding:  Mention  of  political  action  &  right-­‐to-­‐work  law  was  protected  under   section  7  of  the  NLRA Reasoning: Relates  to  EEs  interests  as  EEs  -­‐ super  broad  reading Sec  2  (NLRA  -­‐ definition  of  EE)  is  designed  to  help  all  employees,   don't  have  to  have  same  employer Shall  include  any  EE  and  will  not  be  limited  to  the  EEs  of  a   particular  ER Broader  than  the  particular  employment  relationship § They  help  EEs  who  may  be  affected  by  right-­‐to-­‐work  or  min  wage   laws They  want  to  change  the  labor  market,  the  industry § 74th  Congress  knew  labor  push  beyond  immediate  employment  context,   and  expected  labor  to  use  a  variety  of  tools  to  advocate  for  their  well-­‐ being   (1930s,  New  Deal  congress) § Limit  depending  on  the  advocacy § Let  the  Board  decide  (court  of  appeals  and  SCOTUS  can  still   overturn) § Minimum  wages  have  an  affect  in  bargaining If  the  floor  on  negotiations  goes  up,  that  reverberates  and  helps  the   union § General  Council  Memo Similar  situation  as  Eastex,  but  this  time  about  immigration  laws General  Council  of  Board  sends  a  memo  saying  this  does  count  as  mutual  aid   and  protection Section  2's  broad  definition Congress's  broad  reading  of  mutual  aid  and  protection  -­‐ solidarity  as  a  key   issue Advocacy  is  connected  as  long  as  there's  a  direct  nexus  to  employee   working  conditions Immigration  policies  proposed  at  the  time  were  sufficiently  connected  to   working  conditions Threat  of  influx  of  foreign  engineers § Eastex,  Inn.  V.  NLRB  (1978) Officer  of  local  801  started  distributing  a  newsletter Section  1  &  4:  Urged  EEs  to  join  the  union Section  2:  Encouraged  workers  to  oppose  state  right-­‐to-­‐work  statute Section  3:  Tells  EEs  the  president  vetoed  the  minimum  wage  increase ER  said  you  can't  distribute  newsletters  at  work They  file  a  ULP Issue:  Is  the  refusal  of  distributing  the  newsletter  with  some  political  activity  a   violation  of  section  8(a)1? EE  argument:  Not  unlawful,  violent,  breach  of  contract,  disloyal ER  argument:  Much  narrower  view  of  mutual  aid  &  protection Section  1&4  is  okay,  but  political  advocacy  is  not  MA&P Political  action  &  right-­‐to  work  not  kosher § ER  can't  do  anything  about  it § Holding:  Mention  of  political  action  &  right-­‐to-­‐work  law  was  protected  under   section  7  of  the  NLRA Reasoning: Relates  to  EEs  interests  as  EEs  -­‐ super  broad  reading Sec  2  (NLRA  -­‐ definition  of  EE)  is  designed  to  help  all  employees,   don't  have  to  have  same  employer Shall  include  any  EE  and  will  not  be  limited  to  the  EEs  of  a   particular  ER Broader  than  the  particular  employment  relationship § They  help  EEs  who  may  be  affected  by  right-­‐to-­‐work  or  min  wage   laws They  want  to  change  the  labor  market,  the  industry § 74th  Congress  knew  labor  push  beyond  immediate  employment  context,   and  expected  labor  to  use  a  variety  of  tools  to  advocate  for  their  well-­‐ being   (1930s,  New  Deal  congress) § Limit  depending  on  the  advocacy § Let  the  Board  decide  (court  of  appeals  and  SCOTUS  can  still   overturn) § Minimum  wages  have  an  affect  in  bargaining If  the  floor  on  negotiations  goes  up,  that  reverberates  and  helps  the   union § General  Council  Memo Similar  situation  as  Eastex,  but  this  time  about  immigration  laws General  Council  of  Board  sends  a  memo  saying  this  does  count  as  mutual  aid   and  protection Section  2's  broad  definition Congress's  broad  reading  of  mutual  aid  and  protection  -­‐ solidarity  as  a  key   issue Advocacy  is  connected  as  long  as  there's  a  direct  nexus  to  employee   working  conditions Immigration  policies  proposed  at  the  time  were  sufficiently  connected  to   working  conditions Threat  of  influx  of  foreign  engineers § Prelim  1  Review Friday,  September   29,  2017 11:35  AM

This is the end of the preview. Please to view the rest of the content
Join more than 18,000+ college students at Cornell University who use StudySoup to get ahead
School: Cornell University
Department: Labor Relations, Law and History
Course: Labor and Employment Law
Professor: K Griffith
Term: Fall 2015
Tags: Labor and Law
Name: Prelim 1 Review
Description: -Briefs for all course discussions on cases from Cordwainers to the General Council Memo -Big picture labor law themes
Uploaded: 09/29/2017
36 Pages 75 Views 60 Unlocks
  • Better Grades Guarantee
  • 24/7 Homework help
  • Notes, Study Guides, Flashcards + More!
Join StudySoup for FREE
Get Full Access to Cornell - ILRLR 2010 - Study Guide - Midterm
Join with Facebook

or

Join with Email
Already have an account? Login here
×
Log in to StudySoup
Get Full Access to Cornell - ILRLR 2010 - Study Guide - Midterm

Forgot password? Reset password here

Forgot password? Reset your password here

I don't want to reset my password

Need help? Contact support

Need an Account? Is not associated with an account
Sign up
We're here to help

Having trouble accessing your account? Let us help you, contact support at +1(510) 944-1054 or support@studysoup.com

Got it, thanks!
Password Reset Request Sent An email has been sent to the email address associated to your account. Follow the link in the email to reset your password. If you're having trouble finding our email please check your spam folder
Got it, thanks!
Already have an Account? Is already in use
Log in
Incorrect Password The password used to log in with this account is incorrect
Try Again

Forgot password? Reset it here