Pub Date : 1900-01-01DOI: 10.2190/0D7K-HJP9-73QY-CRAV
S. Crow
In general, the way organization treat employees improved dramatically over the past thirty years; a trend that is likely to continue. Altruism is probably not an imperative for this increased concern for employees' welfare, instead, the combined effects of social, political, and economic considerations probably account for the improvements in employee relations. In contrast, workers who use alcohol or drugs are at greater risk today of losing their jobs than they were ten years ago. This is due in part to job-related issues; however, the effect of emotions, bound up in what seems to be a new temperance move ment in America, must be considered as a plausible explanation. The way organizations treat their employees has been of considerable interest to scholars and management practitioners over the past thirty years. During that time, treatment of the individual worker improved significantly and today, concepts like fair play, due process, and just cause are part of the employee relations orthodoxy. During the past ten years, however, while job protection and regard for the individual worker became a mainstay of employee relations, job security for workers who use alcohol or drugs decreased. The treatment of workers who use alcohol or drugs can best be examined within a framework of cycles of tolerance and intolerance. America is currently experiencing a cycle of intolerance toward alcohol and drugs, and workers who use intoxicants are at risk in what appears to be a neotemperance movement. The purpose of this article is to examine this latest round of intolerance and its probable effects on American workers. 1 Throughout this article, drugs are defined as illicit drugs like cocaine, heroin, and marijuana.
{"title":"The New Temperance Movement: Workplace Junkies Never Had It So Bad","authors":"S. Crow","doi":"10.2190/0D7K-HJP9-73QY-CRAV","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2190/0D7K-HJP9-73QY-CRAV","url":null,"abstract":"In general, the way organization treat employees improved dramatically over the past thirty years; a trend that is likely to continue. Altruism is probably not an imperative for this increased concern for employees' welfare, instead, the combined effects of social, political, and economic considerations probably account for the improvements in employee relations. In contrast, workers who use alcohol or drugs are at greater risk today of losing their jobs than they were ten years ago. This is due in part to job-related issues; however, the effect of emotions, bound up in what seems to be a new temperance move ment in America, must be considered as a plausible explanation. The way organizations treat their employees has been of considerable interest to scholars and management practitioners over the past thirty years. During that time, treatment of the individual worker improved significantly and today, concepts like fair play, due process, and just cause are part of the employee relations orthodoxy. During the past ten years, however, while job protection and regard for the individual worker became a mainstay of employee relations, job security for workers who use alcohol or drugs decreased. The treatment of workers who use alcohol or drugs can best be examined within a framework of cycles of tolerance and intolerance. America is currently experiencing a cycle of intolerance toward alcohol and drugs, and workers who use intoxicants are at risk in what appears to be a neotemperance movement. The purpose of this article is to examine this latest round of intolerance and its probable effects on American workers. 1 Throughout this article, drugs are defined as illicit drugs like cocaine, heroin, and marijuana.","PeriodicalId":371129,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Individual Employment Rights","volume":"20 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"132133591","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This article provides an overview of legislation and precedent-setting disability rights cases in Canada in the context of employment. It reviews the prevalence and impact of disabilities and identifies various types of accommodations that are ameliorative in the workplace. Key terms and concepts such as the Meiorin test, undue hardship, and bona fide occupational requirements (BFORs) are presented, and the article also includes a brief overview of provincial human rights legislation. Finally, several comparisons are drawn between Canadian and American approaches, and suggestions are made to integrate Canadian strategies into American disability rights frameworks. Human rights legislation broadly encompasses laws that have been created and ratified to prevent discrimination against individuals on protected grounds. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights was the first of these laws, and it was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in December of 1948 [1]. The members’ intent was to develop a “universal” document that included “principles of nondiscrimination, civil and political rights, and social and economic rights.” It was generated: from the strong desire for peace in the aftermath of the Second World War . . . this was the first time in history that a document considered to have universal value was adopted by an international organization. It was also the first time that human rights and fundamental freedoms were set forth in such detail . . . although the 58 Member States which formed the United Nations at that time varied in their ideologies, political systems and religious and cultural backgrounds and had different patterns of socio-economic development, the
{"title":"Disability Rights Frameworks in Canada","authors":"Bally Thun","doi":"10.2190/IE.12.4.G","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2190/IE.12.4.G","url":null,"abstract":"This article provides an overview of legislation and precedent-setting disability rights cases in Canada in the context of employment. It reviews the prevalence and impact of disabilities and identifies various types of accommodations that are ameliorative in the workplace. Key terms and concepts such as the Meiorin test, undue hardship, and bona fide occupational requirements (BFORs) are presented, and the article also includes a brief overview of provincial human rights legislation. Finally, several comparisons are drawn between Canadian and American approaches, and suggestions are made to integrate Canadian strategies into American disability rights frameworks. Human rights legislation broadly encompasses laws that have been created and ratified to prevent discrimination against individuals on protected grounds. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights was the first of these laws, and it was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in December of 1948 [1]. The members’ intent was to develop a “universal” document that included “principles of nondiscrimination, civil and political rights, and social and economic rights.” It was generated: from the strong desire for peace in the aftermath of the Second World War . . . this was the first time in history that a document considered to have universal value was adopted by an international organization. It was also the first time that human rights and fundamental freedoms were set forth in such detail . . . although the 58 Member States which formed the United Nations at that time varied in their ideologies, political systems and religious and cultural backgrounds and had different patterns of socio-economic development, the","PeriodicalId":371129,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Individual Employment Rights","volume":"113 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"131557107","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 1900-01-01DOI: 10.2190/8HHG-9CR0-HCY8-1JGW
Evan W. Duggan, Din K. Duggan
Business organizations have exploited the innovations enabled by information and communications technologies to modify their modes of operation in order to improve their effectiveness and strategic positioning. However, this continuous stream of new technologies and their applications have affected (sometimes negatively) the work life of employees, who must make the adjustments necessary to accommodate technology-induced changes. Old fears about the potentially adverse impact of the proliferation of applications of information technology (IT) linger while newer concerns have emerged. In this article we undertake a critical analysis based on our legal and IT perspectives and a thorough review of the relevant literature to examine this “creative destruction.” We examine different motivations for including employees in the design of information systems and how such inclusion may help to co-generate features that are both important for business success and responsive to the human impacts of employee/IT interaction. Except in European Union (EU) countries that endorse codetermination, there is very little legislation elsewhere that addresses individual participation in information systems design decisions as an employment right. This EU experience is compared with other voluntary approaches.
{"title":"EMPLOYEE RIGHTS AND PARTICIPATION IN THE DESIGN OF INFORMATION SYSTEMS IN THE EUROPEAN UNION AND THE UNITED STATES: CODETERMINATION LAWS AND VOLUNTARY PARTICIPATION","authors":"Evan W. Duggan, Din K. Duggan","doi":"10.2190/8HHG-9CR0-HCY8-1JGW","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2190/8HHG-9CR0-HCY8-1JGW","url":null,"abstract":"Business organizations have exploited the innovations enabled by information and communications technologies to modify their modes of operation in order to improve their effectiveness and strategic positioning. However, this continuous stream of new technologies and their applications have affected (sometimes negatively) the work life of employees, who must make the adjustments necessary to accommodate technology-induced changes. Old fears about the potentially adverse impact of the proliferation of applications of information technology (IT) linger while newer concerns have emerged. In this article we undertake a critical analysis based on our legal and IT perspectives and a thorough review of the relevant literature to examine this “creative destruction.” We examine different motivations for including employees in the design of information systems and how such inclusion may help to co-generate features that are both important for business success and responsive to the human impacts of employee/IT interaction. Except in European Union (EU) countries that endorse codetermination, there is very little legislation elsewhere that addresses individual participation in information systems design decisions as an employment right. This EU experience is compared with other voluntary approaches.","PeriodicalId":371129,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Individual Employment Rights","volume":"19 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"132161835","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 1900-01-01DOI: 10.2190/TEVF-LP7M-T8RW-WA8D
Seymour Strongin, Andrew M. Strongin
The Supreme Court's decision in Gilmer v. Interstate/lohnson Lane Corp. potentially signifies an expanded role for the labor arbitrator in the resolution of employment-related claims. Under the Steelworkers trilogy, labor arbitrators' expertise was perceived as being limited to matters of the shop, and so labor arbitrators' authority was limited by the Court to those areas. By compelling the arbitration of Gilmer's Age Discrimination in Employment (ADEA) claim, the Court firmly embraced an increased respect for the expertise of arbitrators, and signalled a willingness to depart from the limitations imposed by the Steelworkers trilogy on the role of labor arbitrators. These comments address the implications of Gilmer v. Interstate/Johnson Lane Corp. [1] when applied to traditional agreement-based labor arbitration. Gilmer was required as a condition of his employment with Interstate to register as a securities representative with the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE). According to the Supreme Court, the registration application "provided, among other things, that Gilmer 'agree[d] to arbitrate any dispute, claim or controversy' arising between him and Interstate 'that is required to be arbitrated under the rules, constitutions or by-laws of the [NYSE]'" [1, at 1650]. One of the NYSE rules provided for the arbitration of '''[a]ny controversy" between Gilmer and Interstate "'arising out of [Gilmer's] employment or termination of employment" [1, at 1651]. The case involved Gilmer's efforts to bring a claim under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) in federal court, rather than submit it to compulsory arbitration pursuant to the terms of the arbitration agreement
最高法院在吉尔默诉州际/约翰逊莱恩公司案中的裁决可能意味着劳动仲裁员在解决与就业有关的索赔方面的作用扩大。在《钢铁工人三部曲》中，劳动仲裁员的专业知识被认为仅限于车间事务，因此法院将劳动仲裁员的权力限制在这些领域。通过强制仲裁Gilmer的就业年龄歧视(ADEA)索赔，法院坚定地接受了对仲裁员专业知识的更多尊重，并表明愿意摆脱钢铁工人三部曲对劳动仲裁员角色的限制。这些评论讨论了Gilmer诉Interstate/Johnson Lane Corp.[1]一案在适用于传统的基于协议的劳动仲裁时的影响。Gilmer被要求作为他在州际公司工作的条件之一，在纽约证券交易所(NYSE)注册为证券代表。根据最高法院的判决，该注册申请“除其他事项外，规定Gilmer‘同意(d)仲裁他与州际公司之间发生的‘根据[纽交所]规则、章程或细则要求仲裁的’任何争议、索赔或争议’”[1,at 1650]。纽约证券交易所的一项规则规定，对于Gilmer与Interstate之间“因[Gilmer的]雇佣或终止雇佣而引起的”“[a]任何争议”进行仲裁[1,at 1651]。该案件涉及Gilmer根据《就业年龄歧视法》(ADEA)向联邦法院提出索赔，而不是根据仲裁协议的条款将其提交强制仲裁
{"title":"Gilmer v. Interstate/Johnson Lane Corp.: Observations on an Expanded Role for the Labor Arbitrator","authors":"Seymour Strongin, Andrew M. Strongin","doi":"10.2190/TEVF-LP7M-T8RW-WA8D","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2190/TEVF-LP7M-T8RW-WA8D","url":null,"abstract":"The Supreme Court's decision in Gilmer v. Interstate/lohnson Lane Corp. potentially signifies an expanded role for the labor arbitrator in the resolution of employment-related claims. Under the Steelworkers trilogy, labor arbitrators' expertise was perceived as being limited to matters of the shop, and so labor arbitrators' authority was limited by the Court to those areas. By compelling the arbitration of Gilmer's Age Discrimination in Employment (ADEA) claim, the Court firmly embraced an increased respect for the expertise of arbitrators, and signalled a willingness to depart from the limitations imposed by the Steelworkers trilogy on the role of labor arbitrators. These comments address the implications of Gilmer v. Interstate/Johnson Lane Corp. [1] when applied to traditional agreement-based labor arbitration. Gilmer was required as a condition of his employment with Interstate to register as a securities representative with the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE). According to the Supreme Court, the registration application \"provided, among other things, that Gilmer 'agree[d] to arbitrate any dispute, claim or controversy' arising between him and Interstate 'that is required to be arbitrated under the rules, constitutions or by-laws of the [NYSE]'\" [1, at 1650]. One of the NYSE rules provided for the arbitration of '''[a]ny controversy\" between Gilmer and Interstate \"'arising out of [Gilmer's] employment or termination of employment\" [1, at 1651]. The case involved Gilmer's efforts to bring a claim under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) in federal court, rather than submit it to compulsory arbitration pursuant to the terms of the arbitration agreement","PeriodicalId":371129,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Individual Employment Rights","volume":"104 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"133095425","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 1900-01-01DOI: 10.2190/H2EX-4A3R-292V-C0F8
C. B. Gilmore, Martha A. Broderick
First Amendment speech rights are increasingly becoming a source of controversy on college and university campuses. As the Supreme Court struggles to establish a balance between the teacher, as citizen, and the university, as employer, the line between protected and unprotected speech has been bent but not broken. An examination of recent court decisions reveals some answers and provides educators with guidelines for determining the nature and extent of the protections offered within the purview of academic free speech rights. Indicators of the more typical issues raised about the conflict between free speech and academia are suggested. The free exercise of First Amendment rights is coming under greater scrutiny within the educational community. Increasingly, constitutionally protected interests-especially involving the freedom of speech-are being challenged by teachers and other educators. Due to recent developments, they could face discipline up to and including termination for classroom utterances. The problem, as enunciated by the Supreme Court, has been to establish a balance between “the interests of the teacher, as a citizen, in commenting upon matters of public concern” and the “the interests of the state, as an employer, in promoting the efficiency of the public service it performs” [ I , pp. 1734-17351. In this leading case, the right of faculty to speak out on public matters was settled in part but questions still remain unanswered. The Supreme Court, in Pickring, refrained from establishing a general standard for judging statements by public employees [l]. Where, then, is the line between protected and unprotected speech to be
第一修正案的言论权利正日益成为高校校园争议的一个来源。当最高法院努力在作为公民的教师和作为雇主的大学之间建立平衡时，受保护和不受保护的言论之间的界限被弯曲了，但没有被打破。对最近法院判决的研究揭示了一些答案，并为教育工作者提供了确定学术言论自由权范围内所提供保护的性质和范围的指导方针。提出了关于言论自由与学术之间冲突的更典型问题的指标。教育界对第一修正案权利的自由行使正受到更严格的审查。受宪法保护的利益——尤其是涉及言论自由的利益——正日益受到教师和其他教育工作者的挑战。由于最近的事态发展，他们可能面临纪律处分，包括在课堂上发表言论而被解雇。正如最高法院所阐明的那样，问题是在“教师作为公民的利益，在评论公众关注的问题上”和“国家作为雇主的利益，在提高公共服务的效率上”之间建立一种平衡[I, pp. 1734-17351]。在这一主要案例中，教员就公共事务发表意见的权利在一定程度上得到了解决，但问题仍未得到解答。在Pickring一案中，最高法院没有建立评判公职人员陈述的一般标准[1]。那么，受保护和不受保护的言论之间的界限在哪里呢
{"title":"Free Speech on the Firing Line: the Legal Controversy Continues","authors":"C. B. Gilmore, Martha A. Broderick","doi":"10.2190/H2EX-4A3R-292V-C0F8","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2190/H2EX-4A3R-292V-C0F8","url":null,"abstract":"First Amendment speech rights are increasingly becoming a source of controversy on college and university campuses. As the Supreme Court struggles to establish a balance between the teacher, as citizen, and the university, as employer, the line between protected and unprotected speech has been bent but not broken. An examination of recent court decisions reveals some answers and provides educators with guidelines for determining the nature and extent of the protections offered within the purview of academic free speech rights. Indicators of the more typical issues raised about the conflict between free speech and academia are suggested. The free exercise of First Amendment rights is coming under greater scrutiny within the educational community. Increasingly, constitutionally protected interests-especially involving the freedom of speech-are being challenged by teachers and other educators. Due to recent developments, they could face discipline up to and including termination for classroom utterances. The problem, as enunciated by the Supreme Court, has been to establish a balance between “the interests of the teacher, as a citizen, in commenting upon matters of public concern” and the “the interests of the state, as an employer, in promoting the efficiency of the public service it performs” [ I , pp. 1734-17351. In this leading case, the right of faculty to speak out on public matters was settled in part but questions still remain unanswered. The Supreme Court, in Pickring, refrained from establishing a general standard for judging statements by public employees [l]. Where, then, is the line between protected and unprotected speech to be","PeriodicalId":371129,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Individual Employment Rights","volume":"12 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"133025654","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 1900-01-01DOI: 10.2190/5FRU-F1PC-D1WV-CMWJ
Jennifer E. Brummert
This article focuses on the treatment of sexual harassment by television networks in situation comedies. It contrasts the litigated cause of action under Title VII. with the comedic value of sexual harassment in television screenplays. While the former faces punishment in the form of termination and damages, the latter is rewarded with ratings and royalties. This article explores the Title VII restrictions placed on employers, and discusses the (im)plausibility of placing those same restrictions on television character employers. It finally examines why frce speech trumps Title VII in the television arena, but not in the American workplace. In recent ycars, the topic of sexual harassment has permeated our society through employment [ 11, journalism [2], politics [3]. and even the entertainment industry [4-121. Embedded in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, sexual harassment is viewed as a form of discrimination [13]. The seriousness of this unlawful conduct is evidenced through a multitude of lawsuits, training sessions, and published guidelines for employers and employees alike [ 141. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has established criteria for employers to follow [15, 161, and the Supreme Court has narrowly defined what constitutes sexual harassment [ 171, how that leads to a hostile work environment [ 181, and who can be held liable for such conduct [ 19.201. The seriousness of sexual harassment dissipates in the transition to the bmadcast form. The responsibilities placed upon employers am absent when those employers arc characters on the small screen. As a favorite situation comedy topic, sexual harassment metamorphosizes from unlawful conduct punishable by termination and damages, to a humorous satire rewarded by high ratings and
{"title":"Sexual Harassment—a Primetime TV Laughing Matter","authors":"Jennifer E. Brummert","doi":"10.2190/5FRU-F1PC-D1WV-CMWJ","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2190/5FRU-F1PC-D1WV-CMWJ","url":null,"abstract":"This article focuses on the treatment of sexual harassment by television networks in situation comedies. It contrasts the litigated cause of action under Title VII. with the comedic value of sexual harassment in television screenplays. While the former faces punishment in the form of termination and damages, the latter is rewarded with ratings and royalties. This article explores the Title VII restrictions placed on employers, and discusses the (im)plausibility of placing those same restrictions on television character employers. It finally examines why frce speech trumps Title VII in the television arena, but not in the American workplace. In recent ycars, the topic of sexual harassment has permeated our society through employment [ 11, journalism [2], politics [3]. and even the entertainment industry [4-121. Embedded in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, sexual harassment is viewed as a form of discrimination [13]. The seriousness of this unlawful conduct is evidenced through a multitude of lawsuits, training sessions, and published guidelines for employers and employees alike [ 141. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has established criteria for employers to follow [15, 161, and the Supreme Court has narrowly defined what constitutes sexual harassment [ 171, how that leads to a hostile work environment [ 181, and who can be held liable for such conduct [ 19.201. The seriousness of sexual harassment dissipates in the transition to the bmadcast form. The responsibilities placed upon employers am absent when those employers arc characters on the small screen. As a favorite situation comedy topic, sexual harassment metamorphosizes from unlawful conduct punishable by termination and damages, to a humorous satire rewarded by high ratings and","PeriodicalId":371129,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Individual Employment Rights","volume":"258 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"132755243","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 1900-01-01DOI: 10.2190/GUNH-B34U-XDX0-JBTK
R. K. Robinson, E. Gillenwater, D. Terpstra
In a recent decision, the NLRB has created a framework for legal analysis of unlawful employer domination allegations which threatens many employee participation or empowerment programs in nonunion places of employment. A marked incompatibility in the application of the 58 year old National Labor Relations Act and current accepted management practices has been noted. The most likely solution to this apparent dilemma in labor-management relations appears to be statutory reform of the labor code. On December 16, 1992, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) issued a decision likely to have profound consequences for many employee participation programs (EPP) nationwide. In its Electromation, Inc. v. International Brother hood of Teamsters ruling [1], the NLRB upheld the decision of Administrative Law Judge George F. Mclnerny that the company's employee "action com mittees" were "labor organizations" within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) [2]. The administrative law judge had further held that these "labor organizations" (the aforementioned action committees) were unlaw fully dominated by the employer in violation of § 8(a)(2) of the NLRA. In affirming the decision of the administrative law judge, the NLRB was scrupulous
在最近的一项决定中，NLRB创建了一个框架，用于对非法雇主支配指控进行法律分析，这些指控威胁到许多员工参与或在非工会就业场所授权项目。已实行58年的《国家劳动关系法》的适用与目前公认的管理做法明显不一致。对于劳资关系中这种明显的困境，最有可能的解决方案似乎是对劳动法进行法定改革。1992年12月16日，国家劳资关系委员会(NLRB)发布了一项决定，可能对全国许多员工参与计划(EPP)产生深远影响。在Electromation, Inc.诉国际卡车司机兄弟会案(International Brother - hood of Teamsters)的裁决[1]中，NLRB支持行政法法官George F. Mclnerny的判决，即该公司的员工“行动委员会”是《国家劳动关系法》(National labor Relations Act, NLRA)意义上的“劳工组织”[2]。行政法法官进一步认为，这些“劳工组织”(上述行动委员会)是非法的——由雇主主导，违反了《劳资关系法》第8(a)(2)条。在确认行政法法官的决定时，NLRB是谨慎的
{"title":"Electromation v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters: Analytic Framework for NLRB Interpretation of Unlawful Employer Domination of Nonunion Employee Participation Programs","authors":"R. K. Robinson, E. Gillenwater, D. Terpstra","doi":"10.2190/GUNH-B34U-XDX0-JBTK","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2190/GUNH-B34U-XDX0-JBTK","url":null,"abstract":"In a recent decision, the NLRB has created a framework for legal analysis of unlawful employer domination allegations which threatens many employee participation or empowerment programs in nonunion places of employment. A marked incompatibility in the application of the 58 year old National Labor Relations Act and current accepted management practices has been noted. The most likely solution to this apparent dilemma in labor-management relations appears to be statutory reform of the labor code. On December 16, 1992, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) issued a decision likely to have profound consequences for many employee participation programs (EPP) nationwide. In its Electromation, Inc. v. International Brother hood of Teamsters ruling [1], the NLRB upheld the decision of Administrative Law Judge George F. Mclnerny that the company's employee \"action com mittees\" were \"labor organizations\" within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) [2]. The administrative law judge had further held that these \"labor organizations\" (the aforementioned action committees) were unlaw fully dominated by the employer in violation of § 8(a)(2) of the NLRA. In affirming the decision of the administrative law judge, the NLRB was scrupulous","PeriodicalId":371129,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Individual Employment Rights","volume":"41 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"116606589","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：