The National Labor Relations Board and the Supreme Court

1940 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
pp. 139-141
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard J. Hunter ◽  
Hector R. Lozada ◽  
John H. Shannon

This article is a summary discussion of the main issues faced by faculty at private, often church-sponsored, universities who sought to be represented by a union in collective bargaining with their employers. The discussion begins by tracing the origins of the rule that faculty at private universities are managers and not employees under the aegis of the National Relations Act in the Supreme Court case of Yeshiva University. The summary then follows developments over the years up to the most recent decision of the National Labor Relations Board that sanctioned the efforts of adjunct professors at Elon University to seek union representation. In examining these two book-end cases, the article discusses issues relating to the effect of the religion clauses of the First Amendment in the context of the National Labor Relations Board’s shifting views on the topic. Last, the authors discuss unionization in the context of church-sponsored colleges and universities. Is it now time for the Supreme Court to review its seminal decision in Yeshiva University and for church-sponsored colleges and universities to rethink their positions as well?


2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter M. Shane

If the Senate confirms a full complement of members for the National Labor Relations Board, the Obama administration should ask the Supreme Court in Noel Canning v. NLRB to remand the case, without decision, to be re-heard by the NLRB. The court should grant the request, showing a judicial restraint for which the Roberts bench is not known — and returning the recess appointments controversy to the elected branches of government, where it belongs. If the SG does not pursue this course, the Court should use the political question doctrine to avoid unnecessary judicial interference with the dynamics of the President's and Senate's shared appointments power.


2021 ◽  
Vol 4 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard J. Hunter, Jr. ◽  
◽  
Hector R. Lozada ◽  
John H. Shannon

This article is a summary discussion of the main issues faced by faculty at private, often church-sponsored, universities who sought to be represented by a union in collective bargaining with their employers. The discussion begins by tracing the origins of the rule that faculty at private universities are managers and not employees under the aegis of the National Relations Act in the Supreme Court case of Yeshiva University. The summary then follows developments over the years up to the most recent decision of the National Labor Relations Board that sanctioned the efforts of adjunct professors at Elon University to seek union representation. In examining these two book-end cases, the article discusses issues relating to the effect of the religion clauses of the First Amendment in the context of the National Labor Relations Board’s shifting views on the topic. Last, the authors discuss unionization in the context of church-sponsored colleges and universities. Is it now time for the Supreme Court to review its seminal decision in Yeshiva University and for church-sponsored colleges and universities to rethink their positions as well?


2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter M. Shane

This essay, written prior to the Supreme Court's decision in Noel Canning v. NLRB, argued that the Court of Appeals decision voiding President Obama's recess appointments to the National Labor Relations Board was unpersuasive, and set forth five plausible outcomes on the merits in the Supreme Court, each of which could claim some support in separation of powers law and practice. After explaining the facts of Noel Canning, the essay laid out the alternatives and argued that the Court should treat the key legal issues regarding the interpretation of the recess appointments power as "political questions"--that is, questions that are constitutionally left to the elected branches of government to decide for themselves.


2017 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 105-131
Author(s):  
Allen Al-Haj

A law can often be a double-edged sword—its mandate or protection of one right will sometimes come at the cost of another. Compounding this problem of unintended consequences is that laws do not operate in a vacuum. Instead, laws interact with other laws, and if they conflict, courts must determine which will prevail. Determining the validity of class-action waivers in employment arbitration agreements will require reconciling the Federal Arbitration Act’s mandate that arbitration agreements be enforced according to their terms against the National Labor Relations Act’s protection of employees’ right to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of mutual aid and protection. The dispute over the validity of these agreements requires courts to determine which law and congressional policy should prevail. The National Labor Relations Board and circuit courts throughout the country have been unable to reach a uniform decision, which has prompted the United States Supreme Court to grant certiorari on a triad of cases concerning this issue. With a decision from the nation’s highest Court expected during the 2017–18 term, this Comment analyzes the background and legal arguments behind these competing statutes to determine how the Court is likely to rule. This Comment concludes that, given the Court’s previous rulings in arbitration and class-action cases and the recent Supreme Court confirmation of Justice Neil Gorsuch, the Court is likely to rule in favor of validating class-action waivers in employment arbitration agreements.


2020 ◽  
pp. 29-34
Author(s):  
D. Kutomanov

Problem setting. Of the large volume of cases before national courts, cases involving the distinction between labor and civil relations are of particular interest. Superficial familiarization with the practice of consideration of this type of labor disputes reveals the existence of conflicting enforcement approaches, sometimes contradictory to each other, which determines the need for a deeper understanding of the issues of disputes caused by such phenomena as concealment or replacement of labor relations. The purpose of the research is to reveal the problematic issues of the distinction between labor and civil relations, both from the point of view of the existing doctrine of labor law, and through the prism of the existing rulemaking practice, aimed at improving national legislation on labor. Analysis of resent researches and publications. The issues of the distinction between labor and civil relations have become the subject of scientific analysis in the writings of such scientists as O.V. Zabrodina, L.O. Zolotukhina, M.I. Inshin, R.A. Maidanik, S.M. Prilipko, Ya.V. Svichkaryova, D.I. Sirokha, N.V. Fedorchenko, O.M. Yaroshenko and others. At the same time, these issues require further research in order to develop comprehensive recommendations aimed at improving labor law. Article’s main body. Among the specific number of court cases that are subject to the applicable rules of labor law are the two most common categories of cases through which the Supreme Court formulates legal positions on the distinction between labor and civil relations. The subject of the first category of cases are the demands of individuals on the recognition of relationships, formulated in the form of a civil contract labor. The subject of the second category of cases is disputes between employers and the State Service of Ukraine on labor issues on the recognition of illegal and the cancellation of prescriptions and resolutions of the state body. The analysis of the legal positions of the Supreme Court, formulated as a result of consideration of the above categories of cases, leads to the conclusion that the basic concept of the distinction between labor and civil relations, which is applied in the practice of the Supreme Court, is fully consistent with the doctrinal approach and is to determine the employment relationship, what relation, subject advocates the process of organization of work, not its result, with a further combination of the specified trait with other traits in each specific situation (duration of relationships, systematic the promptness of payment, the presence of signs of subordination, and others).. Conclusion. In the case of disputes related to the concealment of labor relations or their replacement through the conclusion of civil contracts with employees, the case-law proceeds from the need for a systematic assessment of the content of contracts concluded between the parties for the purpose of revealing in their terms direct or indirect signs of employment relations. The approaches taken by the Supreme Court to distinguish between labor and civil relations certainly enrich the law-enforcement practice and, given the binding status of its rulings, help to formulate uniform approaches to the interpretation and application of the provisions of current law.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document