About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

17 Mem. St. U. L. Rev. 69 (1986-1987)
UAW-Hm Saturn Contract: Sweetheart Deal or Novel Labor-Management Agreement

handle is hein.journals/umem17 and id is 93 raw text is: UAW-GM Saturn Contract: Sweetheart Deal or Novel Labor- Management Agreement?* JEFFREY L. HALL** I. INTRODUCTION The rights of employees to self-organization, to bargain col- lectively through representatives of their own choosing, or to refrain from such activity are basic principles of the National Labor Re- lations Act (NLRA).1 Labor contracts that grant exclusive bar- gaining status to a specific union prior to a majority of the employees' selection of a bargaining agent denigrate these principles and, consequently, are invalid as an unfair labor practice.2 In ad- dition to running afoul of federal labor law, these contracts run the risk of conflicting with state right-to-work laws.' * The opinions expressed herein are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the editor or staff. ** Associate, Goodwin & Goodwin, Charleston, West Virginia. B.A., Youngstown State University, 1983; J.D., The University of Akron, 1986. The author gratefully ac- knowledges the assistance of Rossie D. Alston, Jr., counsel for the National Right to Work Foundation. 1. Section 7 of the NLRA provides in part: Employees shall have the right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of col- lective bargaining . . . and shall also have the right to refrain from any or all of such activities .... 29 U.S.C. § 157 (1983). 2. In International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union v. NLRB, 366 U.S. 731, 737 (1961), the Supreme Court held invalid a labor contract that granted exclusive bargaining status to a union having the support of only a minority of employees as a clear evisceration of the employees' rights under the NLRA to freedom of choice and majority rule. See also NLRB v. Pennsylvania Greyhound Lines, Inc., 303 U.S. 261 (1938); NLRB v. Haberman Constr. Co., 618 F.2d 288 (5th Cir. 1980), rev'd on other grounds on rehearing, 641 F.2d 351 (5th Cir. 1981) (en banc). 3. Section 14(b) of the NLRA allows states, as a matter of local law, to make all varieties of compulsory unionism illegal. 29 U.S.C. § 164(b) (1983). One author has noted that section 14(b) appears to be an anomalous exception to an otherwise pervasive federal preemption doctrine, a doctrine that nullifies most state laws purporting to regulate the labor-management relationship. Haggard, Right-To-Work Laws in the Southern States, 59 N.C.L. REV. 29, 33 (1980).

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most