The Failure of the Labor Management Relations Act to Protect Bargaining Rights of Newly Certified Unions

The purpose of this study is twofold. First, it will examine employer techniques used to thwart the rights of newly certified unions. Second, this study will attempt to determine the effectiveness of the Act's remedies. Some statistical characteristics of cases and firms involved in violations of the duty to bargain collectively will be evaluated. Statistics from the Board's annual reports as well as from a recent study by Philip Ross will be used. The increase of Board cases dealing with violations of refusal to bargain, the average number of violations per case, and the prevalence of other unfair labor practices will be examined. The size of firms committing the majority of violations of collective bargaining will be compared with the size of firms involved in the majority of Board certification elections. National Labor Relations Board, circuit court of appeals, and Supreme Court cases will be used to investigate the effectiveness of three of the most prevalent violations of the duty to bargain collectively used by employers to circumvent the purposes of the Act. They are (1) refusal to meet with the newly certified union, (2) engaging in unilateral activity, and (3) refusal to bargain in good faith. This study will also examine the effectiveness of the remedies of the Labor Management Relations Act in protecting the worker's right to bargain collectively with his employer through representatives of his own choosing. Four of the standard Board remedies will be examined---(1) posting of notices, (2) reinstatement of employees discriminated against, (3) payment of back pay, and (4) a Board order to bargain in good faith