National Labor Relations Board - Research Paper Example

? National Labor Relations Board: Supreme Court case: ABF Freight System Inc. V. National Labor Relations National Labor Relations Board 510 U.S. 317(1994). Student Name October 18, 2012 Abstract The National Labor Relations Act of 1935 created the National Labor Relations Board. The board interprets and issues guidelines pertaining to provisions of the National Labor Relations Act of 1935. The board monitors and requires all United States companies strictly implement the provisions of the act. The agency’s functions Include ensuring the implementation of an equitable balance between management’s desire to generate profits and the workers’ aim to earn a decent living. The agency mediates labor- management conflicts. The board monitors labor union elections and collective bargaining agreements. The board monitors and makes decisions regarding workers’ strikes and company lockouts. Evidently, the National Labor Relations Board ensures a working current management-employee relationship, ushering more economic benefits to the United States economy, employers, and the workers. Keywords: National Labor Relations Board, Unfair Labor Practice, Board Members. ABF Freight System Inc. V. National Labor Relations National Labor Relations Board 510 U.S. 317 (1994) Discussion of the agency’s formation (1 page) The United States government establishes laws that will increase the nation’s gross domestic production. To produce goods, companies hire workers. In turn, the workers eagerly produce the company’s goods in exchange for salaries or commissions. The company sells the workers’ goods at a profit. The government steps in to ensure there is a cooperative working relationship between the employees and the employers. The government established the National Labor Relations Board to monitor and maintain compliance with the provisions of the labor law. The Board has to power to penalize companies found violating the tenets of the National Labor Relations Act of 1935 (NLRB 2012). The ABF Freight System Inc. V. National Labor Relations National Labor Relations Board 510 U.S. 317 (1994) case is grounded on the National Labor Relations Board’s responsibility to implement the labor laws. The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) is an independent United States federal agency (NLRB 2012). The labor law states that one of the major functions of the agency is to safeguard the labor rights of both the employees and the employers. The board has the power to prevent both labor and management from implementing acts that harm the workers’ welfare, management’s welfare, and the United States’ economic welfare. The board upholds the labor law’s interpretation of unfair labor practice. Likewise, the board defines unfair labor practice as interrupting, preventing, and forcing employees from exercising their rights listed in Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act of 1935. The board complies with the United States government’s responsibility to reduce acts that will disable the nation’s industrial peace. Obstructions reduce the free flow of commerce. Further, the board issues policy statements. Some statements amend current labor rules regulations. Likewise, the board exercises the power to rescind unresponsive labor policies and make new labor policies that will replace currently unfavorable ones (NLRB 2012). National Labor Relations Labor Relations Board: The Reasons for its Formation (1 page) The National Labor Relations Act of 1935 was originally coined the Wagner Act (1935). The Wager Act provides the workers’ right to form and maintain labor unions. The Wagner Act created the quasi-judicial body called the National Labor Relations Board (Boyer, 2001). The body interprets the National Labor Relations Act of 1935. The board has the authority to enforce its labor case decisions. The board hears complaints from the aggrieved labor parties. Both management and the employee will present evidences to the board. The board pens its decision. The board compiles all its case law decisions. The Act prevents employers from implementing vengeful acts against employees for joining and participating in labor union activities. The Act encompasses all facets of the labor law. The facets Include unfair labor practices, labor union election matters, and labor representation issues. An amendment, Taft-Hartley Act (1947), augmented the Wagner act. The Hartley Act (1947) strictly prevents labor unions from forcing all employees join and actively participate in labor union activities (Wong, 2010). In 1935, Congress approved the National Labor Relations Act. The act compulsorily obliges the employers to enter into a collective bargaining agreement with its employees. The act provides for the creation of the National Labor Relations Board. The board implements the pertinent sections of the act (Springhouse, 2004). The board formulates many decisions pertaining to whether certain employee participation committees can be classified as labor organizations. The board states that a labor organization is any group or entity that represents the interests of the employees. The board reiterates that the labor organization normally represents the workers’ grievances, wage disputes, labor disputes, employee hours, and working conditions. The board’s decisions are in line with prescribed Supreme Court requirements (Board, 1999). National Labor Relations Labor Relations Board: The Board’s Current and Future Goals (1 page) The Current National Labor Relations Board’s goals are charted by its four board members. The Chairman is the highest ranking office. The Chairman is Mark Gaston Pearce. The three board members are Brian Hayes, Sharon Block, and Richard Griffin, Jr. The United States President appoints the Board Members to five-year terms. The National Labor Relations Board members have the authority to prescribe rules and policies to improve the working environment. The National Labor Relations Board Members’ functions Include revising, improving, or inserting new provisions to the labor law. The function enhances current labor-management relationships (NLRB 2012). Labor Relations Act of 1935 serves as the board’s guide. The board’s current and future goals remain same. The future involves using the computer Increase information transfer. The National Labor Relations Board does not deviate from its compulsory role. The role Includes both monitoring and maintaining equal protection of the work rights of both the employees and the employers. The National Labor Relations Board continues to make the workplace more conducive. The board functions Include reinstating employees who were illegally dismissed. The National Labor Relations Board continues its current job of ensuring employers respect the workers’ right to form or join a labor union. The National Labor Relations Board continues penalizing companies found guilty of violating the labor law provisions. The National Labor Relations Board continues accepting labor complaints. The board continues mediating labor disputes. The board continues penalizing labor law violations. The National Labor Relations Board continues investigating, issue subpoenas, administering oaths and affirmations to witnesses, and obtain court orders that force the production of evidences or testimony in labor-related cases. The board implements affirmation action (NLRB 1997). The board continues to ensure that the workplace is devoid of unwarranted employers’ threats or coercions. National Labor Relations Board: Relationship between the National Labor Relations Board and the Executive Branch (2 pages) There is a direct relationship between the National Labor Relations Board and the executive branch. The United States president, Mr. Barack Obama, appoints the members of the National Labor Relations Board. When making the President’s board member choice, the United States president includes the United States Congress’ inputs. In 2009, President Obama approved the Department of Labor’s Executive Order 13494. The executive order instructs the National Labor Relations Board to promote reduce government spending (DOL 2012). The board is required to comply with the president’s directive to reduce avoidable agency expenses. Consequently, the members of the National Labor Relations Board submit case reports to the Current United States president. The boar’s statistic-based reports include the status of pending labor law cases. The National Labor Relations Board also submits a similar report to the United States Congress. When each board member’s duty expires, the United States President can reappoint the same Board members. After the president appoints the National Labor Relations Board members, the National Labor Relations Board members appoint their own subordinates. The National Labor Relations Board members hire trial lawyers. The lawyers handle labor-related cases. The board members set up and maintain efficient labor dispute mediation services. Mark Perce – Chairman of the Board National Labor Relations Board Mark Graston Pearce is the Chairman of National Labor Relations Board. President Barak Obama appointed Mr. Pearce as National Labor Relations Board Chairman last April 7, 2010. The United States Senate confirmed Mr. Pearce’s appointment on June 22, 2010. Mr. Pearce’s term as National Labor Relations Board Chairman will last until August 27, 2013. Mr. Pearce established the law office of Creighton, Pearce, and Johnson in Buffalo City, New York. Attorney Pearce was a prior lawyer and District Trial Specialist in the same community. The board Chairman previously worked for the Buffalo (New York City) Regional office of the National Labor Relations Board. The Governor of New York State appointed Mr. Pearce to join the local community’s National Labor Relations Board. Mr. Pearce previously served on many National Labor Relations Board commissions. The NLRB Chairman previously worked as legal expert for the New York States Department of Labor. He was a prior law professor of the University of Buffalo Law School. Mr. Pearce got his Bachelor’s diploma from the famous Cornell University (Cornell 2012). The above biography shows that Mr. Pearce has the legal expertise to lead the National Labor Relations Board. Mr. Pearce is also showing loyalty to the United States president by complying with all the president’s instructions. With his many years of actual labor law practice, Mr. Pearce has the fortitude, character, maturity, and legal knowledge to lead one of the biggest United States government agencies, the National Labor Relations Board. Mr. Pearce can share his labor case expertise and experiences to the new labor agency lawyers. Mr. Pearce’s sharing enhances the labor law expertise of the National Labor Relations Board’s neophyte lawyers. As a law professor, Mr. Pearce has complete mastery of the labor law provisions. Teaching is a life time job. Outside the four walls of the classroom, Mr. Pearce can focus his teaching prowess to increasing the new lawyers’ labor practice skills. Supreme Court case: ABF Freight System Inc. V. National Labor Relations National Labor Relations Board 510 U.S. 317 (1994). Analysis of the Facts of the Case (1 page) The ABF Freight Systems Inc. fired Mr. Michael Manso. The Company stated that Mr. Michael Manso’s lying triggered his termination. The company insisted that the employee gave a fraudulent reason for his tardiness. However, the fired employee countered by stating that he was fired because of his being an active labor union member. Mr. Manso questioned ABF Freight Inc.’s unfair labor practices. During the court hearing, the employee lied about his being absent. Consequently, the court judge gave a decision favoring the employer. However, the National Labor Relations National Labor Relations Board did not accept the judge’s decision. Instead, the National Labor Relations Board gave a decision favoring the employee. The board’s decision overturned the court judge’s prior decision. Consequently, the board ordered the company, ABF Freight Inc., to pay the dismissed employee’s back wages (4lawnotes, 2012) Losing the board’s decision, ABF Freight Inc. appealed the National Labor Relations Board’s decision. The appeal was filed at the 10th Circuit court, an appeals court. The company, ABF Freight Inc., countered that the National Labor Relations Board should not reinstate the employee, Mr. Manso. ABF Freight, Inc. stated that the National Labor Relations Board had no authority to reinstate the terminated employee because the employee had lied. However, the Tenth Circuit Court affirmed the National Labor Relations Board’s decision. The Court opined that the National Labor Relations Board had the authority to reinstate the employee. The appeals court, Tenth Circuit Court, mentioned that the board’s grounds for the reinstatement were legally valid. Further, the ABF Company appealed the appeals court’s unfavorable decision to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the appeals court, Tenth Circuit Court. The Supreme Court emphasized that the issue of perjury (lying under oath) is not within the jurisdiction of the National Labor Relations Board. ABF Freight System Inc. V. National Labor Relations National Labor Relations Board 510 U.S. 317 (1994) The Procedural History (1 page) Mr. Manso worked as dockworker at ABF Freight Inc.’s trucking terminal. The workplace is located in Albuquerque, New Mexico. Mr. Manso worked from 1987 to 1989. The company terminated the services of Mr. Manso three times. Initially, Mr. Manso was Included in a group of 12 terminated employees (4lawnotes, 2012). The reasons for the termination included some preferential casual work issues. Mr. Manso filed a grievance complaint. Mr. Manso charged the company for committing unfair labor practice acts against Mr. Manso. Again, Mr. Manso was reinstated. Mr. Manso was again terminated for failing to report for work. The company announced that it implemented a new company attendance policy. After filing the grievance complaint, Mr. Manso was again reinstated. After two months, Mr. Manso was terminated. The company, ABF Freight, Inc. mentioned that Mr. Manso was late for work. This time, the company mentioned that Mr. Manso was late for one hour. Mr. Manso lied to the company officers by stating that his car could not start while cruising along the highway. Finally, the company terminated Mr. Manso. Mr. Manso insisted that the company had no such late policies stating that the late employee will be terminated. However, the company, ABF Freight, Inc. insisted that Mr. Manso was terminated for lying. The case clearly shows that there is no cooperative relationship between ABF Freight Management and Mr. Manso because of Mr. Manso’s active participation in labor union priorities. The National Labor Relations Board mentioned that the company’s discriminatory labor policies violated Mr. Manso’s labor law rights. During the hearing, the ABF Company admitted that it implemented preferential or discriminatory labor policies among its employees. The company did not terminate other employees who were also late. In addition, the National Labor Relations Board was curious why the prior court judge refused some individuals’ request to testify on behalf of Mr. Manso’s defense. ABF Freight System Inc. V. National Labor Relations National Labor Relations Board 510 U.S. 317 (1994) Analysis of the Supreme Court’s decision (2 pages) Another government agency, the Supreme Court, made a decision regarding the board’s handling of the Mr. Manso case. The court gathered evidences from both parties in the NLRB v ABF Freight Inc. case. Both parties to the case were given ample opportunities to present their reasons that help the Supreme Court make a more informed decision (4lawnotes, 2012). The Supreme Court studied the Board’s rationale and the Court of Appeal’s reasons for reinstating Mr. Manso. The Supreme Court observed that the National Labor Relations Board insisted on Mr. Manso’s reinstatement on the ground that the National Labor Relations Board is only implementing the labor law. Specifically, the Supreme Court affirmed that ABF Freight Inc. did not overstep its mandate to reinstate Mr. Manso. The Supreme Court observed that the National Labor Relations Board noted Mr. Manso will not benefit from his lying under oath. However, the United States Congress gave the National Labor Relations Board the power to reinstate illegally dismissed employees. The Supreme Court allows the non-reinstatement of Mr. Manso only if Mr. Manso was discharged for cause. The National Labor Relations Act (1935) requires that the illegally dismissed employees should be reinstated. The National Labor Relations Board believes that the lie issue does not diminish the ABF’s violation of the labor laws. The labor laws grant avenues or procedures that must be implemented, especially when an employee is terminated. The company, ABF Freight Inc., failed to grant the employee’s labor rights enshrined in the nation’s labor law [Sec 8(a) (4) NLRA -1935]. Since the employee was not afforded his labor law right to security of tenure and due process, the National Labor Relations Board had to implement the full force of the National Labor Relations Act. The board found the company, ABF Freight, Inc. guilty of unfair labor practice. Mr. Manso’ termination is an unfair labor practice act. The Supreme Court’s decision is based on the merits of the case. The Supreme Court recognized the board’s decision to reinstate Mr. Manso because lying issues are not part of the board’s responsibilities. The Supreme Court found the company, ABF Freight, Inc. guilty of violating the labor laws. The Company committed a constructive dismissal act. The Supreme Court opined that the board did not abuse its authority by reinstate Mr. Manso. The Supreme Court observed that the company wanted to terminate Mr. Manso’s services because of his labor union priorities. However, the company could not terminate Mr. Manso because of his labor union affiliation. The company used the lateness issue and the lie issue to fulfill its decision to remove Mr. Manso from the company’s premises. However, the National Labor Relations Board, Court of appeals, and the Supreme Court were able to see the truth behind Mr. Manso’s termination. The National Labor Relations Board played a very important part in the ABF Freight v Mr.Manso case. The agency used its mammoth powers to correct ABF Freight Inc.’s unfair labor practice act. By putting a stop to the ABF Company’s illegal act, the case served as a warning to other companies. The other companies will use the same case as a warning. The other companies will withhold their plans to illegally terminate employees who join labor union activities. The Supreme Court took all these facts in its decision to affirm the Board’s decision to reinstate Mr. Manso. ABF Freight System Inc. V. National Labor Relations National Labor Relations Board 510 U.S. 317 (1994) Opinion about the Merits of the Agency and Holding of the Supreme Court on the Case/ holding of the Supreme Court on the Case. (3 pages) The Supreme Court’s decision is correct. The company, ABF Freight, had illegally exercised discrimination by firing Mr. Manso. The firing was in retaliation for his labor union activities [Sec 8(b) (2) NLRA 1935]. The company reiterated that Mr. Manso was terminated because of lateness. However, the company admits that it discriminated by terminating only Mr. Manso. The company now uses another side issue to spice up their unfair labor practice acts. The company’s flimsy defense states that Mr. Manso’s lie prevents him from returning to work. The three government departments vividly interpret ABF Freight Inc.’s act as unfair labor practice. Consequently, ABF Freight Inc. should be penalized for violating Mr. Manso’s labor law rights (4lawnotes, 2012). The National Labor Relations Board found ABF Freight company violated Section 8 (a) (3) of the National Labor Relations Act of 1935. The section qualifies all discriminatory acts committed against employees qualify as unfair labor practices. In the current case, Section 8 (a) (3) of the National Labor Relations Act of 1935 states that companies should not employ unfair labor practices against its employees. The labor law states “it is unfair labor practice for an employer to discriminate against employees in regard to hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment for the purpose of encouraging or discouraging membership in labor organization (NLRB 1992, p.15).” The National Labor Relations Act of 1935 classifies discrimination as an illegal Act. After gathering all the evidences from all parties, the Supreme Court correctly made its firm and unwavering decision. Exercising its mandate as the interpreter of laws, the Supreme Court gave an evidence-based decision. The Supreme Court was right in affirming the Board’s decision to reinstate Mr. Manso (4lawnotes, 2012). The Supreme Court is correct in upholding the National Labor Relations Board’s reinstatement of Mr. Manso. The company, ABF Freight, illegally used discriminatory policies against Mr. Manso violating Sec 8(b) (1) (B) of the National Labor Relations Act of 1935. The Supreme Court correctly affirmed the National Labor Relations Board’s decision stating ABF Freight Company violated Sec 8(a) (e) of the National Labor Relations Act of 1935. The section specifically mentions unfair labor practices Include “discharging employees because they urged other employees to join a union, granting of super seniority to those hired to replace employees engaged in a lawful strike, refusing to reinstate employees… because they took part in a union’s lawful strike” (NLRB 1997 p. 15) and other related labor law provisions. ABF Freight System Inc. V. National Labor Relations National Labor Relations Board 510 U.S. 317 (1994) Other Related Cases Another case affirms the Supreme Court’s decision that the National Labor Relations Board has the legal mandate to reinstate employees. In the case of Ivaldi v. National Labor Relations Board (93-70608 and 93-9370691) Feb. 23, 1995, the National Labor Relations Board ordered the reinstatement of the Ivaldi employees. The employees joined strikes against the company. The company’s refusal to a viable contract forced the two day strike to crop up. The company refused to honor the labor union. The court affirmed the National Labor Relations Board’s decision that the employees should be reinstated because the company violated labor law provisions. The above case indicates that the National Labor Relations Board has the legal authority to reinstate employees. The same case shows that the National Labor Relations Board can come to the rescue of the abused employees. The company’s refusal to accept the labor union as representing its members is a violation of the labor law provisions. Consequently, the management of Ivaldi was guilty of acts that must be repaired. To repair the injustice on the employees, the National Labor Relations Board rightfully required the company reinstate the employees. The National Labor Relations Board also required the company to enter into an amicable collective bargaining agreement with the employees. With the National Labor Relations Board’s timely decision, the company has not other recourse but to implement the National Labor Relations Board’s instructions to the letter (http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1257332.html). Another case proves that Supreme Court is correct in stating that the National Labor Relations Board has the legal authority to reinstate employees. In addition, the NLRB v Velocity Express (NLRB case No. 17-CA-20076-) case, the National Labor Relations Board required the reinstated of the six terminated employees (http://www.projectposner.org/case/2003/338F3d74. The company fired the six employees for not preventing the sexual abuse of one of their fellow employees. National Labor Relations Board required the reinstatement of the employees who left their jobs because of unfair working conditions. The six employees refused to report because they felt their working conditions are not fit for human work. When the employees returned to work, the compared barred them from entering. The Supreme Court affirmed the National Labor Relations Board’s decision to reinstate the employees. The United States Congress states that the board had the authority to reinstate employees who are victims of management’s unfair labor practice acts (Congress, 2010). Conclusions Summarizing the above discussion, the National Labor Relations Board monitors and requires the United States companies’ compliance with the provisions of National Labor Relations Act (1935). The agency implements the equitable balance between management’s desire to generate profits and the workers’ desire to earn a decent living and security of tenure. The agency mediates labor- management conflicts, especially in the above ABF Freight System INC.V. National Labor Relations National Labor Relations Board 510 U.S. 317 (1994) case. Evidently, the National Labor Relations Board necessarily enhances current management-employee working relationship, bringing more economic benefits to the United States economy, employers, and the workers. . REFERENCES: ABF vs. NLRB, retrieved October 18, 2012, from < http://www.4lawnotes.com/constitutional-law-case-briefs/1483-abf-freight -systemInc-v-national-labor-relations-board.html> Board, N. L. (1999). Decisions and Orders of the National Labor Relations Baord. New York: Government Printing Office. Boyer, P. (2001). The Oxford Companion to United States History. New York: Oxford University Press. Congress. (2010). CongressionalRecord. New York: Government Printing Office. Department of Labor, retrieved October 18, 2012, from Ivaldi v NLRB, retrieved October 18, 2012, from Mark Pearce, retrieved October 18, 2012, from National Labor Relations Board, retrieved October 18, 2012, from National Labor Relations Board, retrieved October 19, 2012, from . National Labor Relations Board, retrieved October 24, 2012 from, National Labor Relations Board Members, retrieved October 24, 2012, from NLRB, Basic Guide to the National Labor Relations Act 1935, New York, NLRB Press (1997) NLRB v Velocity Express, retrieved October 18, 2012, from Springhouse, B. (2004). Nurse's Legal Handbook. New York: LippIncott Williams & Wilkins Press. Wong, G. (2010). Essentials of Sports Law. New York: ABC CLIO Press. Read More