The landrum-griffin act was passed in 1959 to:
What is the Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act?The Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959 (LMRDA), also known as the Landrum-Griffin Act, was passed to provide greater protections to individual union members. Show
Back to: EMPLOYMENT LAWS Next Chapter: EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION What are the Protections of the the Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act?Section 101(a)(1) - This provision allows union members the right to vote for union representatives, to nominate candidates, and to take part in union meetings. These rights are "subject to reasonable rules and regulations in such organization's constitution and bylaws." Depending upon what the union constitution provides for member rights, general members must have equal rights. If, however, the constitution withholds specific authority to a group or board of individuals, the Act does not grant this right or authority to all members. Section 101(a)(2) - This provision protects the right of each member to meet with or assemble with any other or all members of the union. It also protects freedom of expression (including criticism or dissension) with regard to union activity. Section 101(a)(3) - This provision protects union members from being subject to raises in union dues without first going through established procedures. Section 101(a)(4) - This provision protects union members from retribution or discharge for bringing suit against the union or any of its members. The member must generally follow any internal or administrative procedures in place to resolve union disputes prior to filing suit. Section 101(a)(5) - This provision provides due process rights for union members in disciplinary actions. Except for instances of non-payment of dues, members cannot be subject to disciplinary action by the union without being given notice of the charged misconduct, a reasonable time to prepare for the proceeding, and a formal hearing before the unions board or adjudicative body. Title IV - Title IV of the Act places requirements on union elections. Similar to corporate board procedures, it allows candidates for election the right to inspect certain documents, to obtain membership lists, and the right to campaign or advertise equally in union newsletters. Failure to follow these rules can cause the DOL to invalidate an election. Title V - Title V of the Act places fiduciary standards upon union officers. Particularly, officers must avoid self-interested transactions at the expense of the union and report any dealings (such as financial expenditures) to the members. The LMRA allows union members to bring an action in federal court for any violations of these provisions. This is subject to any requirements in the constitution to first pursue administrative remedies for disputes. Related Topics
Discussion QuestionWhat do you think was the Federal Governments purpose in passing greater protections for individual union members as against the union organization? Do you think these provisions are warranted or effective? Can you think of any other protections that union members should be afforded as part of their union membership? Practice QuestionWilliam is an employee of ABC Corp and a member of the workers union. He has been very outspoken against the unions stance on new hiring salaries. William believes that the salary system should be more tiered in favor of experienced employees as apposed to affording new employees such extensive benefits. Is William protected if the union (or its members) takes any negative actions against him for his position? Academic ResearchThe Landrum-Griffin ActThe Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959 (also "LMRDA" of the "Landrum-Griffin Act"), is a United States labor law that regulates labor unions' internal affairs and their officials' relationships with employers. It was sponsored by Democrat Phil Landrum and Republican Robert P. Griffin. History and BackgroundAfter passage of the Taft-Hartley Act, the number of union victories in NLRB-conducted elections declined. During the 12-year administration of the Wagner Act, unions won victories in over 80 percent of elections. But in that first year after passage of the Taft-Hartley Act, unions only won around 70 percent of the representation elections conducted by the agency. During the middle and late 1950s, the labor movement was under intense Congressional scrutiny for corruption, racketeering, and other misconduct. Enacted in 1959 after revelations of corruption and undemocratic practices in the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, International Longshoremen's Association, United Mine Workers and other unions received wide public attention, the Act required unions to hold secret elections for local union offices on a regular basis, and provided for review by the United States Department of Labor of union members' claims of improper election activity. Organized labor opposed the act because it strengthened the Taft-Hartley Act of 1947. ProvisionsImportant provisions of the law were as follows:
Amendment to the National Labor Relations ActCongress also amended the National Labor Relations Act, as part of the same piece of legislation that created the LMRDA, by tightening the Taft-Hartley Act's prohibitions against secondary boycotts, prohibiting certain types of "hot cargo" agreements, under which an employer agreed to cease doing business with other employers, and empowering the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board to seek an injunction against a union that engages in recognitional picketing of an employer for more than thirty days without filing a petition for representation with the NLRB. Consequences and ResultsWhile intended largely to limit union corruption and create a more equitable power structure within the unions, the Act was not without flaws in this regard. Twenty years after the passage of the Act, co-sponsor Senator Robert Griffin extolled its success in writing, saying: "Today, nearly two decades after enactment, it is undeniable that the Landrum-Griffin Act has played a significant role in enabling union members to participate more freely in the affairs of their unions. On the other hand, it cannot be said that union corruption and abuses of union power have disappeared. But such conduct in the union movement is not as common as it was twenty years ago; and, in large measure, that can be credited to the existence of the Landrum-Griffin Act. " Senator Griffin acknowledged the shortcomings, particularly with regard to the Teamsters. However, Griffin argued that these violations were contrary to the Act, placing the blame instead on the Department of Labor for failing to pursue action against the Teamsters union for its corruptions. Ultimately, the act's technical failures were exploited by both the courts and union officials—most famously the Teamsters, whose president, Jimmy Hoffa, among others, notably raided the union pension coffers for his own personal investments. While the Act ostensibly was created to foster democracy, the judiciary frequently interpreted it in ways to minimize internal union dissonance and labor disruption, favoring instead the stern hand of management. As law professor Alan Hyde put it: "Indeed, the courts advance democratic bargaining only when assured that such democracy will not disadvantage more fundamental policy interests, such as harmony between employers and "unions" (read union elites) or control of inflation. " Republican Senator Robert P. GriffinCo-sponsor of the Landrum-Griffin Act. What was one of the main purposes of the TaftIn addition to its other controls of labor disputes, the Taft-Hartley Act allowed the president to appoint a board of inquiry to investigate labor disputes in instances in which a strike might endanger the public's health or safety.
What is the difference between the Wagner Act the TaftFollowing adoption of the Taft-Hartley Act, a number of states enacted so-called “right to work” laws, which banned both closed and agency shops. The Wagner Act was further amended by the Landrum-Griffin Act (1959), which banned secondary boycotts and limited the right to picket.
How did the 1947 TaftThe Taft–Hartley Act prohibited jurisdictional strikes, wildcat strikes, solidarity or political strikes, secondary boycotts, secondary and mass picketing, closed shops, and monetary donations by unions to federal political campaigns. It also required union officers to sign non-communist affidavits with the government.
How did the TaftPerhaps the most well-known and damaging of Taft-Hartley's provisions is the authorization of so-called “right-to-work” laws. A union representing a workplace in a “right-to-work” state is forced to bargain for dues-paying members and non-members alike.
|
