Union Discipline and Its Implications for the Individual and for Management PDF Download

Author: Jeffrey Lynch Harrison
Publisher:
ISBN:
Category : Labor unions
Languages : en
Pages : 400

Get Book

Book Description
Unions are, or at least are presumiod to be, democratic institutions. The concept of democracy implies the existence of certain individual "rights." Hov/ever, it is critical for a union to present a united front; hence, the need for discipline. This study is concerned with the freedom of unions to exercise disciplinary power and the implications of this discipline for tlie union member and for management. As bases for discussion three hypotheses were formulated. First, it was hypothesized that the freedom of unions to exercise discipline has increased since 1935. The second hypothesis stated that union discipline has had the effect of decreasing individual liberty. In addition, it was hypothesized that union discipline has contributed to a decline in management's exercise of what in the past it assumed were its prerogatives. The methodology involved an examination of four separate but related areas v/hich affect the freedom of unions to discipline tlieir members. First, the relevant legislation was examined. Secondly, the contents of union constitutions were reviev7od. The third area of investigation involved an analysis of NLRB and court decisions. Finally, the impact of arbitration and decisions by review boards were considered. In the area of legislation, it was found that there has been increased regulation of union discipline. Union discipline is specifically regulated by Section 101(a)(5) of the Landrum-Griff in Act. Sections 7 and 8(b)(1)(a) of the Taft-Hartley Act also seemed to have the possible effect of curbing union discipline. The contents of union constitutions were foupd to be generally vague. In addition, the constitutions tended to place a great deal of disciplinary power in the hands of the unions. The constitutions usually did not provide for many of the procedural safeguards which are required in federal courts. The attitude of the NLRB and the courts has generally been to avoid involvement in union disciplinary matters unless a job loss is involved or the disciplinary action is flagrantly arbitrary. This is a result of two factors. First, the courts view the union constitution as a contract between the union and the union members. Secondly, the NLRB has interpreted Section 8 (b)(1) (a) of the Taft- Hartley Act in such a way that an individual seems to lose his rights as guaranteed by Section 7 when he joins a union, Arbitration was found to have a limited impact on union discipline because it concerns primarily the union management relationship rather than the union-member relationship. The decisions of review boards were also found to have limited relevance because the boards usually play the role of an appellate body within the union. It was concluded that the freedom of unions to exercise discipline has not increased. At the same time, though, it was concluded that the effect of union discipline has been to greatly reduce individual freedom. The individual not only loses his status as an individual bargaining unit, but he must face disciplinary action without the protection of many procedural safeguards. Finally, it was concluded that union discipline has contributed both directly and indirectly to the decline in management's exercise of what in the past it assumed were its prerogatives. Nevertheless, it was recognized that in certain situations management might favor greater union disciplinary power.