TITLE

Employer Domination Under Section 8 (a) (2)

AUTHOR(S)
Kesselring, Randall G.; Brinker, Paul
PUB. DATE
June 1979
SOURCE
Labor Law Journal;Jun79, Vol. 30 Issue 6, p340
SOURCE TYPE
Academic Journal
DOC. TYPE
Article
ABSTRACT
This article focuses on the provisions for employer domination that are illustrated in the Section 8(a)(2) of the Taft-Hartley Act of the U.S. The authors discusses several topics concerning employer interference with union activity which the U.S. National Labor Relations Board has traditionally considered partially indicative of union domination. Between 1950 and 1974, the Board decided 832 8(a)(2) cases. The article deals with 184 of these cases. The Act substantially changed decisions in Section 8(a)(2) cases by requiring in Section 10(c) that, in deciding such cases, the same regulations and rules of decision shall apply irrespective of whether or not the labor organization affected is affiliated with a labor organization national or international in scope. The rationale for the Taft-Hartley change was given in the Legislative History of the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947. By its ingenious and discriminatory application of this section and of its powers under section 10, the Board has liquidated many unions that workers wished as their bargaining agents. In a few instances, the Board has used the section against affiliated unions.
ACCESSION #
5817868

 

Share

Other Topics