Sockell, Donna
October 1986
ILR Review;Oct86, Vol. 40 Issue 1, p19
Academic Journal
This paper argues that the mandatory-permissive distinction in the scope of the duty to bargain collectively should be abandoned in favor of a policy of classifying all lawful subjects as mandatory. The author shows that in recent applications of the distinction by the NLRB and the courts, many subjects of interest to labor have been declared within the exclusive control of management. She argues that the rationales used by the Board and the courts in these decisions are not compelling, and the mandatory-permissive distinction is even less convincing when its current application is compared to the criteria of an ideal scope of bargaining.


Related Articles

  • Applying Collyer in the Federal Sector: Past Due Remedy. Reischl, Dennis K. // Labor Law Journal;Jun82, Vol. 33 Issue 6, p359 

    The article focuses on cases of unfair labor practices (ULP) adjudicated by the U.S. Federal Labor Relations Authority (FLRA). The three years following adoption of the U.S. National Labor Relations Boards (NLRB) model in the federal sector have seen a phenomenal rise in the number of ULP...

  • In Search of Improving the Administration of the National Labor Relations Act. Rothman, Stuart // Labor Law Journal;Oct62, Vol. 13 Issue 10, p777 

    In the article, the author discusses what kind of administrative arrangements for case-handling will best expedite the procedures of the U.S. National Labor Relations Board without detriment to the fairness of these procedures. One of the proposal which has already received consideration is one...

  • EMPLOYER NEUTRALITY AS HOT CARGO: THOUGHTS ON THE MAKING OF LABOR POLICY. Finkin, Matthew W. // Notre Dame Journal of Law, Ethics & Public Policy;2006, Vol. 20 Issue 2, p541 

    The article discusses the formulation of labor policy by the U.S. National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). Section 8(e) of the Labor Act is the prohibition of hot cargo contracts to social clauses as agreed to by the union and employers. The NLRB has adopted a policy of curtailing the extension of...

  • Poster Wars: The NLRB and the Controversy Over an 11-by-17-Inch Piece of Paper. McFarlane, Joseph H. // Journal of Corporation Law;Winter2013, Vol. 38 Issue 2, p421 

    The article focuses on employer posting requirements in businesses under the U.S. National Labor Relations Act. Topics include the creation of the U.S. National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) for enforcement, equality of bargaining power, and employee rights under the Act. Information is provided...

  • Random Thoughts on NLRB's American Potash Doctrines. Denbo, Milton C. // Labor Law Journal;Mar61, Vol. 12 Issue 3, p249 

    Of all the problems arising under Section 9(b), of the National Labor Relations Board the most difficult one has been that of determining whether in any given case a craft group should be set up as a separate bargaining unit. The criteria which the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) developed...

  • Conair: Minority Bargaining Orders Usher in 1984 at NLRB. Hunter, Robert P. // Labor Law Journal;Sep82, Vol. 33 Issue 9, p571 

    The article focuses on the issuance of minority bargaining orders by the National Labor Relations Board. The Board has long exercised its authority, in appropriate cases, to order an employer to bargain with a union that has at some point demonstrated majority status. However, Conair Corp. is...

  • NLRB Announces New 9 (h) Policy.  // Labor Law Journal;Dec53, Vol. 4 Issue 12, p852 

    The article focuses on the amended Section 9, paragraph H of the Taft-Hartley Act imposed in the U.S. in 1953. The amendment stipulates that the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) will hold its decision when an officer of the union seeking NLRB certification is indicted for having filed a...

  • Employer Withdrawal from Group Bargaining... Union Caution Needed.  // Labor Law Journal;Jan73, Vol. 24 Issue 1, p55 

    The article reports that if an employer with whom a union has been engaged in group bargaining wants to leave the group, the union must be careful how it deals with the employer. This is the case if the union wants to hold any employer to an agreement worked out by a group. A case is presented ...

  • Employer Can Leave New Bargaining Group--Not Telling Union.  // Labor Law Journal;Jan73, Vol. 24 Issue 1, p57 

    The article reports on the U.S. National Labor Relations Board's (NLRB) ruling that an employer who reluctantly joined a state-wide group, then changed its mind and left, acted lawfully. The Board also rules that members of a newly-formed employers' association can resign without telling the...


Read the Article


Sorry, but this item is not currently available from your library.

Try another library?
Sign out of this library

Other Topics