NLRB Rules That Some Labor-Management Committees Are Legal, But Workers Should Remain Skeptical (Aug. 7, 2001)
Created by: Administrator,Last modification on 07 Aug 2001 [05:00 UTC]
U.S. labor law has outlawed the establishment of employer-dominated labor organizations since the 1930's. But in recent years, business leaders have been pushing hard to promote labor-management committees as a way to promote cooperation and teamwork.
Unions, however, have been skeptical of these committees and have fought them on the grounds that they are essentially sham unions in which workers have no real voice. In these disputes, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has been called upon to determine whether labor-management committees violate U.S. labor law.
Under Section 8(a)(2) of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), it is illegal for an employer "to dominate or interfere with the formation or administration of any labor organization or to contribute financial or other support to it." And Section 2(5) of the NLRA defines a "labor organization" as "any organization of any kind, or any agency or employee representation committee or plan, in which employees participate and which exists for the purpose, in whole or in part, of dealing with employers concerning grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, or conditions of work."
In an important 1992 ruling (Electromation v. Teamsters Local 1094), the NLRB found that labor-management committees dealing with subjects such as absenteeism/infractions, no-smoking policy, communications, pay progression, and attendance bonuses are illegal labor organizations under the NLRA. That decision, which was upheld on appeal in 1994, enraged the business community.
Since Electromation, employers have complained endlessly that they have been effectively barred from establishing labor-management committees to deal with issues such as production, quality control, and safety. The Republican-controlled Congress eventually passed the TEAM Act to legalize the broader use of labor-management committees, but it was vetoed by President Clinton in 1996 under pressure from the labor movement.
But a recent ruling by the National Labor Relations Board has now opened the door for greater employee involvement in management committees.
In Crown Cork & Seal (334 NLRB No. 92), the NLRB found that a Philadelphia-based company's use of employee committees at one of its manufacturing plants did not violate the NLRA because these committees are essentially "supervisory" in nature and do not "deal" with the company in a traditional bargaining capacity.
It is this distinction between supervising and bargaining that the Board used to distinguish between legal and illegal labor-management committees.
By practice, the NLRB has defined bargaining as "a pattern or practice in which a group of employees, over time, makes proposals to management [and] management responds to there proposals by acceptance or rejection by word or deed."
Under this definition, an employer-established committee is legal so long as it does not have to submit proposals to the employer before taking action. However, the Board's decision in Crown Cork & Seal made it clear that this does not preempt an employer from overseeing and possibly overruling the actions of these committees.
"Higher management review of a recommendation made by lower management cannot be equated to the 'dealing' between an employer and a representative of its employees contemplated by the [NLRA]," the Board ruled.
While the Board's ruling drew praise from employers, workers may still have good reason to doubt the sincerity of so-called labor-management committees, particularly in non-union settings in which managers may seek to quell worker discontent by inviting them to participate in the decision making process.
As a public relations exercise, calling for more employee involvement in the workplace sounds like a great thing. But the real question is whether workers have any substantive control over the terms of the discussion.
The purpose of most labor-management committees is to increase productivity and enhance profitability, and not necessarily to create a better workplace or increase employee control over the direction of work.
In fact, it's ironic that managers now say they want greater employee involvement running the business. Fifty years ago, companies such as General Motors fought tenaciously against the UAW and other unions that were trying to win greater control over work at the point of production.
There is a place for labor-management committees in the modern workplace. But they should not be viewed as an alternative to unions and workers' efforts to win a real voice and real power on the job.
Unions, however, have been skeptical of these committees and have fought them on the grounds that they are essentially sham unions in which workers have no real voice. In these disputes, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has been called upon to determine whether labor-management committees violate U.S. labor law.
Under Section 8(a)(2) of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), it is illegal for an employer "to dominate or interfere with the formation or administration of any labor organization or to contribute financial or other support to it." And Section 2(5) of the NLRA defines a "labor organization" as "any organization of any kind, or any agency or employee representation committee or plan, in which employees participate and which exists for the purpose, in whole or in part, of dealing with employers concerning grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, or conditions of work."
In an important 1992 ruling (Electromation v. Teamsters Local 1094), the NLRB found that labor-management committees dealing with subjects such as absenteeism/infractions, no-smoking policy, communications, pay progression, and attendance bonuses are illegal labor organizations under the NLRA. That decision, which was upheld on appeal in 1994, enraged the business community.
Since Electromation, employers have complained endlessly that they have been effectively barred from establishing labor-management committees to deal with issues such as production, quality control, and safety. The Republican-controlled Congress eventually passed the TEAM Act to legalize the broader use of labor-management committees, but it was vetoed by President Clinton in 1996 under pressure from the labor movement.
But a recent ruling by the National Labor Relations Board has now opened the door for greater employee involvement in management committees.
In Crown Cork & Seal (334 NLRB No. 92), the NLRB found that a Philadelphia-based company's use of employee committees at one of its manufacturing plants did not violate the NLRA because these committees are essentially "supervisory" in nature and do not "deal" with the company in a traditional bargaining capacity.
It is this distinction between supervising and bargaining that the Board used to distinguish between legal and illegal labor-management committees.
By practice, the NLRB has defined bargaining as "a pattern or practice in which a group of employees, over time, makes proposals to management [and] management responds to there proposals by acceptance or rejection by word or deed."
Under this definition, an employer-established committee is legal so long as it does not have to submit proposals to the employer before taking action. However, the Board's decision in Crown Cork & Seal made it clear that this does not preempt an employer from overseeing and possibly overruling the actions of these committees.
"Higher management review of a recommendation made by lower management cannot be equated to the 'dealing' between an employer and a representative of its employees contemplated by the [NLRA]," the Board ruled.
While the Board's ruling drew praise from employers, workers may still have good reason to doubt the sincerity of so-called labor-management committees, particularly in non-union settings in which managers may seek to quell worker discontent by inviting them to participate in the decision making process.
As a public relations exercise, calling for more employee involvement in the workplace sounds like a great thing. But the real question is whether workers have any substantive control over the terms of the discussion.
The purpose of most labor-management committees is to increase productivity and enhance profitability, and not necessarily to create a better workplace or increase employee control over the direction of work.
In fact, it's ironic that managers now say they want greater employee involvement running the business. Fifty years ago, companies such as General Motors fought tenaciously against the UAW and other unions that were trying to win greater control over work at the point of production.
There is a place for labor-management committees in the modern workplace. But they should not be viewed as an alternative to unions and workers' efforts to win a real voice and real power on the job.
© 2001 Labor Research Association
